confusing to me a lot seems to hinge on whether your client can sit for only four hours in which case she couldn't perform her past relevant work now rather she can sit for six hours and the physicians disagreed about that but i have some difficulty parsing the reasoning of the a l j because it seems completely subjective either way for these physicians to say four hours six hours i don't know what they base it on well judge that to address your question the judge did some rationale for why she rejected the four hour sitting limitation you're correct that if that limitation were to be adopted with the rest of the judge's r f c finding let me let me ask this question that's the same thing that troubles me is my record physician who says four hours less than four hours but otherwise friends are in pretty good shape and you have two reviewing physicians who say no it's more than four and i can't find any reasoning in their opinions either that tells me why they arrived at that number just review records and say well yeah i think i think judge herbert's is getting to the point that bothers me the able to you says well these examining and treating physicians don't have a good reason but then the l g credits to people who also don't hear any reasons and so i don't know what to do with that i think what you go back to is the regulations a does a good enough job saying why i don't credit the opinion of the examining in treating physician because they're inconsistent with other things and examining physician particulars seems to be give me a glowing report right up to where she checks the box that says i'm not up to four hours but when i can't find is what supports the a o j's reasoning what is there in this record other than two opinions of not examining physicians or in your case what is there in this record supports that you can't set up to more than four hours it's just physicians are giving opinions but they're not telling us why and they're giving opinions and it's important to and to focus what they're based on and i'll go back to the examining physicians of paintings that seems to be the focus of the questioning dr tim that he had performed a comprehensive examination noted decreased range of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine so we see that in the addendum to the report i don't believe it's mentioned in the report itself but there is a table of range manipulative limited conditions no spinal tenderness and no obvious spinal deformities and so i'm trying to figure out how based on that examination doctor to put in a battery of them says she can't sit more than four hours and there's nothing in her report that doctor to be i think it's dr barriers report that supports that conclusion for me what is there in the report that gets me to the support for that conclusion so the dots aren't connected within the four corners that report judge i mean i think you can look at the report and i think the conclusion you walk away from is the one the you walked away from it well but when you look at is the fact that this physician also reviewed medical records this physician also noted decreased range of motion in this business only did she review medical records achieve reviewed imaging studies and she also reviewed physical therapy notes that showed greater limitations than were in existence on the day that she examined the individual conditions vary from day to day and i think that you informed her opinion now one of the things that the commissioner notes and that is that the sitting limitation wasn't explained sufficiently by dr tim batty and perhaps that would have been helpful i do know that the administration's form that they asked dr to betty to fill out didn't ask for any explanation as to sitting limitations perhaps i would have been helpful but when you look at the report itself which does not the range of motion findings when you look at the records that that physician reviewed including  objective examination findings including decrease strength and positive straight like raise i think that's where you arrive at the four hour sitting limitation there's also a notation but it isn't specifically connected to this doctor i would agree judge and we see that we see examples of swelling in the legs at a couple places in the record what's notable here is that what the l j said when she reviewed that opinion and city are twenty three she says nothing in the examination notes are consistent with the sitting restriction and that's simply untrue the range of motion examination findings are consistent with the sitting restriction the record of you is consistent with the sitting restriction and so the rejection of that part of the opinion simply isn't based on substantial evidence if i may turn to if i've answered the questions  treating physician who find a significant limitations that would have precluded sustained work the administrative law judge offered some rationales many aren't defended by the commissioner but one that was was the idea that it's not consistent with the medical evidence notably when the consistent with the examining physicians report on those issues so the treating physicians their words i think when i look at the examining physicians report doctor to embody or seems not to find some of the things that they're treating physician for now i think in a whole that report from doctor to daddy is somewhat more benign than other than the reports from other neurologist pain management positions in the file that is absolutely true judge but what's notable is that in rejecting d baldwin otto's report the o j cites to this record which has notable positive findings it simply doesn't say what but i think the elegy intends for it to say so what do you think we should do let's assume you prevail should we remain for new here depends on where the airlines judge if the air lies with the evaluation of dr too bad his opinion alone i think that is remain for further proceedings would be the appropriate remedy if the air allies in the evaluation of and this field sinton testimony or in the otto's report the treating physicians report i think arena and for a computation of benefits would be appropriate here there simply at that point would not be necessarily outstanding issues to be resolved at hearing the vocational expert testified that adopting dr baldwin autos report for example would lead to a finding of disability and it would sort of move the need for further proceedings to that point so it depends on where the error lies but absolutely it's just a doctor to bad you than further proceedings would be appropriate i would like to save the  last minute i have for a bottle and you know i'm starting from the proposition that she can say it for four hours or last she can't do her past work so it matters and it seems to me that the reasons the a l j there are things that indicate that sitting could for long periods could be problematic so without characterizing it why should we allow the l j to go with two arbitrary decisions and other arbitrary decisions where the hierarchy is that the st two are supposed to be you know from more credence so your honor i think the physicians view of claimants functional of patients was not arbitrary because they do cite this is that the evidence underlying your view of claim is ability to sit for up to six hours a day if you read the in the state agency reviewing positions reports they note that improved with we are had some improvement from her previous fusion surgery which is not really at issue in this case and they also cite the normal c e findings from dr tim body and so when they in their narrative summary of their conclusions they do explain why how they reach their conclusions they explain my problem is this one they explain why they think the other two physicians erred in their conclusions and but then they come up with opinions of their own and their opinions on what six hours yes or on or what basis will how it was made when could it have been seven could have been five i mean it's so we have in this case in my view is for shoddy opinions one by treating physician one by examining physician two by reviewing physicians if i'm right in looking at it that way what do we do will your honor ultimately when it when it comes to the term of the r c r c is a ministry defining it is ultimately up to the male j to sift through all the conflicting evidence that's true but that's but the problem is if you have four equally unhelpful determinations don't the regulations require you bring greater weight to the treating and examining physicians then to reviewing physicians who did not examine or treat you substantial evidence when it's consistent with other evidence in the record so let me ask the question differently let's assume that you are supposed to give greater weight to examining and treating but you find reasons not to credit them because they're inconsistent believe the core institute and then the findings of normal sort so let me let me separate my question from five separate findings from opinion because that's i think my difficulty with this case i don't doubt that the findings that the treating physician examining physician made are accurate and record but we have that they arrive at opinions from those findings i can't find a link between those findings in the opinion  the political process i think the l g reasonably relied on is they using reviewing positions as as support for the r a c in this case because as i mentioned knowing that they had the benefit of the review of the bulk of the record which one of the agencies regulations is a factor to weighed in when weighing an opinion beyond that stage the review can physicians are experts in disability evaluation and so their expertise in reviewing in the agency's disability programs and being able to review records and determine the extent of evidence and they don't they don't seem to talk at all about the about the treating physician anywhere and i mean the answer is the same because they say dr temp body have too much sitting restriction that it's ok that's neither here nor there but what we want to share is like let me try this one more time because it's what troubles me in that case nobody doubts the objective findings of the examining physician and the treating and the treating physician nobody says no no you say that she at this subjective thing but you're wrong what the a l j says is you made all those findings but your opinion based on those findings i don't accept because i had two other people review the records and they were arrived at different opinions on those findings is that a fair yes or summary ok to under those circumstances do we give any particular way to the opinions of the treating physician and the examining physician not just their findings but their opinions well in this case the as they did as we noted earlier they did provide reasons for rejecting ok so fair enough and they provided reasons for rejecting them now we have two other people who look at it at exactly the same record and say and we conclude from this record that you can sit for more than four hours do you have to have some reason for crediting those in other words one of my problems with this record is the two reviewing position said we've looked at the same stuff and our opinion is six hours that doesn't come with any presumption because they were examining or treat so we now have four physicians that have looked at the records and come up with varying opinions nobody doubts the objective medical evidence they just arrive at different opinions based on it what do we do in a case like well you know i think in this case i think you might be running  in this case and so as i noted their opinions which are ground in their expertise and evaluating disability claims they review this evidence that ultimately term that claim it could sit for six hours and can perform the limited range  cases all the time or something like that you're right simply just based on their familiarity with the program there and they're just expertise as as physicians and their knowledge of the program and marrying that those sort of dual expert dual experiences thank you honors just briefly to touch take back to get back to the state agency physicians let's look at what they said they said that miss field got better on medication she did temporarily at the time of the hearing she was being worked up for a spinal cord stimulator not exactly evidence of permanent improvement with medication and they indicated that e m t findings were normal but m r i findings and this is it easier for seventy six dollars no scar tissue extending from her post laminate  her left lateral recess where it surrounds that left us one nerve root doctor cuts a few months after that indicates the peri neural starring is causing significant ridiculous symptomology and chronic pain they say the c e findings are normal but the see if i  news are not normal their range of motion limitations noted by dr to bad doctor to betty reviewed other records that noted exam objective examination findings so the the suppositions of those state agency physicians appear to be incorrect and  not all of them are incorrect and that's sort of my difficulty with this woman they do look at other parts of the record and say she seems to have normal she has no stenosis she said that she could see it and it really helped relieve her back pain so there is not there's not their opinions or not without basis in the record it's just difficult to tie those opinions to six hours is my problem and i think in a situation like this for the panel struggles with weighing those opinions we one looks at the