many impairments including complex regional pain syndrome which is why and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome those are important and particular because the l j did not accept the  limitations from those impairments in district court i did not represent mr nygren in the administrative appeals process in district court i felt in my analysis of the case that the main capacity assessment that the ailed excepted there were only three jobs that the vocational expert came up with two of those jobs were clear were improper because they required a higher reason numbers from one of the services that amalgamates numbers and gives you you know you can enter limitations and it'll give you the areas jobs the problem is that many of those services that they use such as browser pro if you don't really understand how to use it it'll give you a number but the number won't be correct because it won't for example with lampshade assembler it will actually take of his hands so yes you're right if you add that in that eliminates the one remaining job so back to what i was saying before they only came up with twenty two thousand it's not clear that twenty two thousand even if it were a  a valid number is a significant number but sort of right on the edge there and i was actually kind of shocked and surprised when i after losing a district court obtained a vocational study that showed that there's about sixty up to sixty of these jobs i mean it's nowhere near a significant number and then i guess begs the question on when a vocational expert gives three jobs two  i'm just wondering why that i mean l j explicitly stated that there were twenty two thousand lampshade similar jobs in the national economy i'm not sure you've been able to point out why that is erroneous at least  about complex regional pimp syndrome and l j completely dismissed that and relied upon the opinions of labored industry doctors who only evaluated him for the purpose of evaluating his workers compensation injury they never evaluated him overall none of their opinions are overall opinions of whether he could work in light of all of us but they are going to be particular that he didn't have as complex  really could have had this much pain when they were saying that right i agree with what exactly what you're saying i shouldn't waives i should hold the rest of my time for a rebuttal thank you for further proceedings the a l j based her assessment of mr nightgowns abilities on substantial evidence in the record this evidence included reports from six examining doctors and four state agency medical consultants whose opinion different pieces of evidence that i think the l j was looking at as a whole during another appointment a doctor question to mr nygren claim that he was unable to use and call at all because there was no significant atrophy of the cast muscle they also noted that mr negron admitted to changing medical providers when they did not agree with his viewpoint regarding his limitations i further mr knight you know will be able to change medical care  pertinent but the fact that he had the issues at that time is right but i think one of the most important factors that i think may have been lost along the way is that even d work it was from a primarily seated sedentary position then in september two thousand and seventeen dr to haleigh although he wrote that mr nigh grid was not able to work if you again look at his more specific limitations he said i think in september two thousand and seventeen that he said that mr nygren was limited to standing and walking between one and three hours and sitting throughout the day if you look at the l j specific residual functional capacity finding he said he found that mr bright migrant could stand there walk up to two hours and sit about six hours in a work day and this is yander but it's about pain especially about right it's about pain but an l j can't just i mean i nailed a need to actually incorporate specific limitations  and l j here did look to dr to haleigh who was the treating doctor and saw that he was saying that she and the mr nygren was limited to standing walking between one and three hours and sitting throughout the day and then the l j incorporated those specific limitations into the r f c i don't know what more i mean it seems like the only thing else is that he could have just said oh yes he r p s and therefore disabled but that's just not the way that these regulations work it's all in terms of specific functional limitations and that is really what the l g was focused on here and that's proper under the regulation  work release form i mean i think that that opinion was saying he can sit for six hours a day while working out the judgment he has been trying to ask you a question if you could just hold up just a minute i' can't discount a mental health evaluation just because it's based on a self report and because that's the nature of psychiatry and i just wanted to hear your your response to that and to and to buck walk why is why should we follow bustier i think any major factor in bach the court actually emphasized in case in that case that the examining psychologist opinion was contradicted only by the opinion of the non examining doctor which was not by itself substantial evidence here by contrast dr wilkinson's opinion was contradicted by dr rogers opinion that and i know he the ailed say talks about dr rogers in a paragraph either proceeding or just a little bit ahead of dr wasn't so good that he doesn't do the analysis which i think they're supposed to do  i think this kind of what you just said goes into the plate his claim that this is sort of post hoc rationalization well i think it's pretty apparent from the l g s decision that she was highly aware of dr rogers's opinion and i think she makes a more general reference i'm not looking at it now just other evidence in the record and that and dr rogers opinion clearly comes within that category i think you know post hoc would be more you know if it attorney on appeal is searching for the record to find anything that supports it regardless of whether the l j was aware of it or not i think from the l g had written situation had gotten worse and increased so i just was not sure and i want to give you an opportunity to discuss whether that discounting  longitudinal record and then for me the important question and i'm trying to decipher is the next one it says the claimants present patients a doctor welcome some was not consistent with his presentation throughout the record so what i'm that can be read to mean that the not that dr rogers but i just seem to internally this says something different that may not implicate our decision and  have response but what i'm positing is it seems to me that the problem is that the the plaintiff was inconsistent with himself he presented differently to these different care providers and that that's the reason they l j was just counting wilkinsons opinion that's functioning for the previous say three years or whatever time period we're talking about there before the mental health medication was working better for him and doing pretty well now doing pretty well doesn't mean you're able to function it just they're relying soley on their self reports but they weren't relying solely on the self reports a psychologist actually observes the person asking the question does testing if they rely primarily on the self reports i longitudinal backorder what it that you're telling us but all i'm telling you is that he relied primarily on his test results his clinical objective observations it wasn't just relying on on  relying primarily on his objective observations turning back to your question judge kristin with regard to his presentation throughout the record doesn't actually quite do any actual examples of presentation that actually are significantly different and a person with depression is going to have resent differently and different days and different times of the day and different  months different years but there's no significant difference between his presentation and certainly none cited by the hail j that actually shows any significant difference with regard to your question earlier about