little irregular you've got ten minutes you can use as little of the time as you wish ok and then and then sit down but we may have some questions for understand then what i'll do is i'll just make my argument at this point and i will leave one minute f keep that down this is my first time before the court of appeals so i hope i do well so excuse my nervousness i hope i just don't blank out but i want to say that i  completely so i'm going to defer to those briefs i gave all of the facts and the specific information in my briefs as far as this case is concerned and specially the report of the reply brief because i had a chance to see what the respondent was arguing against and i i put good information there however i want to discuss something about the standard that the court is using and the how it is applied in because we work down at that level that's where i work i have had this case since the since it was before the l j and the standard i'm talking about there are two standards and in my particular case we have  that's what he felt but miss don't we have with that's a professional medical opinion don't we have to give it some credibility oh absolutely because yes he's a doctor and i can't i cannot  difficult for her and actually brought her to tears now also dr levison he did although he said he reviewed the record we don't know that he only he only saw her for ten minutes and also he never saw her again  what you're saying is six doctors as i count him six doctors on the other side of the case you have one doctor but your doctor's opinion is better than all the others but yes i'll tell you why that opinion is and i'll tell you i lead in with that you see this is the the the standard is and i believe i believe it or not i got this from the so security outline and that's on the court's website and it's pages twenty three and twenty four and the court very well and i you know i'm not criticizing the court i think the court has the law is clear to the court what i'm saying is i think the law is not being applied as the as we as the secretary intends and as the court in towns and it says here to reject the controverted met oh i'm sorry that if you haven't uncontroverted opinion as we all know you need clear and convincing evidence but when is a medical pinion not controverted i say to you your honor sedated all the most of these medical opinions no matter what they are they're all have some difference of opinion there's also some i would say most of them are controverted so i don't think we i've never seen a clear convincing this is a description and i've done hundreds of cells your cases come to kind of get some clarifications of dr patel was her pain management doctor corrects that right and he wasn't treating her for anything else that correct well i think his office was treating her reynolds i think reynolds she saw it once a year i think you know they're all just or something like that dr reynolds was ok and he did and he doesn't weigh in with any opinions here is that correct no he just he just provided a record you know  report and that was it it was nothing i think he was still dealing with i i'm not sure i wish i could remember i think dr reynolds was a neuron or neurologist type of person and doctor the prado was a family physician but see this is the thing you have to remember is that so she was on a worker's comp and she has pain cash that's mrs hennessey and miss hannity and she could not afford those other doctors so she had to rely on dr patel more make sense to me either and i think he just doesn't make any sense and that's what we have in the record that how do we credit it oh i'll tell you because you see what is uncontradicted is now dr patel is a pain management position his expertise and specialty to a record that dr patel filled out that at the bottom of the lower pages he was talking about her pain medication and how the pain medication this is able to her it caused her to be it would cause her to be absent more than three times a month it would cause her to be drowsy it would cause her to be i can't remember the other things that he said but basically those were disabling conditions no one else talked about that anywhere in the record but no one talked about she how those particular factors which in and of themselves are disabling  kinds of forms are i'll say they're not terribly helpful these ones where we just checked and you once you admit that he misunderstood the question and that he gave something that's probably is not accurate and that he didn't intend where does that stop how do we how do we credit him once you admit that dr patel made a mistake in the way that he filled out the form because i believe that that that little error is not that's that's a harmless error that anyone can and can see that that is just where he didn't mean somebody walking fight you know what that he you can see that he didn't intend that it was in a an area like that i said i feel  martin your honour's catherine miller on behalf of the commissioner of social security this is a case where the l g a applied the appropriate methodology for wayne medical opinion evidence he also provided multiple herman's provided multiple specific and legitimate reasons for giving reduced weight to opponents treating pain management specialist dr patel it found the july two thousand and thirteen opinion from this doctor was inconsistent with his own treating in progress notes and as you pointed out in july two thousand and thirteen dr patel said that the appellant can sit for a certain period of time but then miss walk for five minutes every five minutes whereas in october twentieth eleven dr patel found that she could walk for forty five minutes that's two years later right almost two years later that is correct to say but doesn't seem unusual that a doctor might say well that was then and this is now i would agree with that however on this record what we have is patel's clinical findings throughout all of his treatment knows her exactly the same so it doesn't account for this inconsistency he consistently shows that there is some right leg  explain a change in particular over a two year period well he's not necessarily obligated to explain but if he's going to provide a medical opinion we want to see some clarifying here would have been helpful if he had done so sure whose form is this this was a form that was provided by  that was prepared by the by the this is not a doctor's form or a thing about the physical capacities questionnaire no this one this is medical opinion r maryland and s c ability to do work related activities to social security administration name of security number and so forth and then different responses to basically circles of various options the right looks like a for a form the form that would be prepared by o this attorney in minutes just don't make sense to me that what i'm sorry if i apologize for the confusion i would not the attorney did not fill out the form d opinion it's the it's the fill up the form this is the one where you have the five minutes every five minutes i see i see what i think i think i asked that question to you i want to make sure now that we've got the right that we got the right answer so i think i asked you whether whether who prepared this form i mean who with the very detailed forms giving the doctor various options one hundred pounds fifty twenty ten less than ten i don't think it's that unusual actually at the administrative level i think these forms are prepared all the time by plaintiff's coun twelve where ms hennessy is indicating that her pain medications are working quite well and she's had improvements so given these unexplained differences the l g a reasonably concluded that dr patel appear to rely to a large degree on the apollo and sless and reliable subjective records also as you noted earlier dr patel's opinion was contradicted by opinions from five other doctors and it was doctors mclean mcphee levison robinson handle and these all these doctors found that she could do at least sedentary work there were three examining physicians who provided independent clinical findings based on their own examinations which is substantial evidence under cases such as orn and then the non examining doctors considered the examining physicians findings and then made their own interpretations and those are also independent clinical findings under or dr patel's july twenty third team opinion was also inconsistent with the objective was diagnosed with a post laminectomy syndrome which is a failed back syndrome and the pathology associated with that condition is recurrent disk her knee ation stenosis so there were none of these findings and in fact it's the fact that she looked for work i think is about two thousand and ten she says she was only looking for part time work and she says it's just too painful to do to do but the l j uses this against her by saying well you're capable of working because you're looking for a job but if you're only looking for a part time job that doesn't mean that she's that she's capable of doing full time work and if she says and it was just too painful i couldn't do it but that would seem to be an explanation what right well the a l j did find that the fact that she applied for work  indicator suggested that she believed she was capable of some kind of work and it was part time work it was also work that was at the light level and i recognize that cases such as carmichael do you find it at least in the unemployment context that looking part time work is not necessary a clear convincing factor however i would point out the provided multiple findings or reasons to give reduced weight to the appellant's credibility so even if that were in a row erroneous fact we have multiple factors supporting the credibility finding counsel you heard your opposing counsel tell us that dr leveson zz examination was only ten minutes and  the record you're going to response to that this is the opinion which suggested a lingering right i do there was an objection below at the hearing level only to the weight not the admissibility of that particular piece of evidence there was some allegations of bias but i think that that was for opponents counsel to argue or plaintiff's counsel below to the did not hold it against the she there was this finding they could have found there was milling grain or evidence in bowling green in the record and not have gone through all these other credibility factors in fact she says there's some sort of maybe there's unintentional exaggeration but he didn't seem to give a lot of weight to that and three we just have the record that we have and the a l j heard arguments from counsel and weighed the and i just like to make a couple of points less limiting in a pollen to a claimant to lessen sedentary work sounds like a very very restricted range and it's very close to finding them almost disabled but i want to emphasize that the in this case wasn't saying she couldn't do sedentary work but just less then based on posture and environmental limitations and our regulations say and the ve said those kinds of limitations to not erode the occupational sedentary base which under our regulations administratively notices two hundred alternative hypothetical based on dr patel's assessed limitations so we simply don't have that evidence thank you thank you mr normal you've got time remaining ok first before i run out of time the thing i wanted to court to to hear about that i'm wondering worried about this i feel as though the specific in the git imminent standard is gotten granular since it was introduced i think in valentine a while ago almost thirty years claimant for work but if you really if you look in the record this was mentioned by the l j that was that was later really redacted not redacted in the sense of the word redacted but it was later found that she was she was getting worse that that that was only a temporary resolve and then it started getting worse and that again that's not mention and that's not identified and so when we talk about substantial evidence substantial evidence ala jay one specific in legitimate  standard he could find he or she can find a specific in the judgment subsea evidence of reasons based on substantial evidence but he can also ignore some other systems as substantial evidence that that goes against that ten seconds ok these didn't consider the medication all of those others medical evidence medical records that they did not consider the fact the