there are two main arguments here and i'm going to break them up a little a little bit differently this morning for the sake of illustration but first the l g feels to include the artsy impairments in combination and the second  to basically analyze pain properly and mash o's up through the way the l j analyzes the different position opinions specifically grain less weight the pain management doctor for using pain management techniques  little bit about the failure to analyze impairments in combination first but then that's going to be a point to to which i come back to later in the discussion today some of the prime ways that that she's alleging that she's just barely over that mining and disabled that to me that doesn't fall that just on the face of it doesn't follow the logic of bridge because she's not far away edging that she good in terms of the administrative law judges decision about the residual functional compare city could you direct us to medical opinions imposing tighter limits or functional restrictions on let me ask my question again and please answer as specifically as you can do to the met doctors impose restrictions on standing sitting walking other activities that are opinions about functional restrictions that are inconsistent with the r c found as found by the older yes that would be on january fourth two thousand and twelve on dr trigger points found showing painful range of motion and so that shows up at some limitations but there aren't any apart from the limitations in the arctic sea and i'd like to return to reserve time for rebuttal if you don't have any more questions or if i reviewing physician on behalf of the state agency dr smart imposed a number of limitations on the appellant feel safe took those limitations and found that further limitations were needed could whose testimony lists are for her with opinions were not sufficiently taken into account in the first hearing that was the purpose of the remain and to consider those in greater depth but although he found  range of motion reductions at various points in time as a pain management physician he never issued any limitations that described on account of those periodic reduced range of motion renter regardless there are also doctors who found repeated no range of motion limitations and there are doctors who consistently found full strength in her upper body and her extremit opinion from dr smart imposing no limitations in reaching an l j arrived at a residual functional capacity that took an otherwise healthy at the time of her date last insured forty year old woman and found that all she could do was a job where she could sit turning to some of opponents arguments in their brief appellant claims that the l j relied on lack of objective medical evidence and discounting her allegations and i would ask the court if it reads they'll do a decision does it think that the l j thought she was in pain because the answer i think is unequivocal the l g clearly thought that she was in pain and if that is the case then the l g does not rely solely on objective medical evidence because in this record there is no objective evidence of pain two months before her gate last insured which is the date by which her disability has to begin shortly after that surgery dr sugared physicists physicians scuse me physicians assistant imposed no restrictions whatsoever this is at the record page four hundred fifteen at the bottom it says no restrictions at the top when it's discussing her condition it says pissed your head pain has resolved dr sugar notices that six weeks post op appellant was feeling better as a matter of fact he says quote she is doing quite well in those reports after surgery though it's usually compared to what that that is that is the question as compared to women to be ready to go back to work six weeks after spinal surgery and so true but i don't necessarily know that a whole lot of weight has to those sorts of of general statements so that's why i was asking more specifically about doctors opinions about functional restrictions right i understand and that's a obviously a bell a concern especially longer after surgery how is someone doing well if you look at dr schubert's note from september of two thousand and twelve which is a year after the surgery almost a year after her date last insured doctor says returns today she is about a year from surgery overall doing fairly well now he goes on to say she's actually still having pain and able to didn't nor those records are notations again we have an otherwise compared to someone who is not applying for disability a normal individual can do the four range of work with only my point of because i want to direct your attention to the second ala jay incorporating by reference the appellant's testimony from the first hearing yes and obviously at the second hearing the second l j is able to assess credibility but when the second l j is incorporating that testimony is there any commentary in the record about the credibility including whether or not the second bail j in the incorporation by reference of the  actually seems persuaded by or in line with some of the reasoning of the first l j and this specifically has to do with some of the mental limitations because the mental examiners found that there were only mild mostly mild limitations  serious problems but also the evidence that showed they weren't as bad as schilling's but there are no further questions the government press thank you treating physician who pointed to that pain radiation still read into that the shoulders and arms a second i want to draw attention back to the sequence and so didn't just make diagnosis he didn't just make conclusions an opinion for the next surgery failed in the back surgery failed which i don't think are not things that a doctor says lightly but he also makes actual cervical this treatment this real substantive treatment of the doctors really doing things that wouldn't make sense like that and then finally very briefly i would point to the chronic pain syndrome which talk is talked about in the brief a psychological component