completely disabled had a hearing we appealed went up to the district court district court that they o j you didn't know what you did was wrong and remained it back down under sentence for saying and the reasons you gave for discrediting mr karr dennis and his treating physician were inadequate when i went back down i think on this record it's pretty clear the  j said tails we win heads i get to do it again and all as we see in the second opinion is throwing out more information nothing that was  new is this second opinion isn't really the product of taking new medical evidence or getting the opinion of a record for view dr who testified the things that the ale g actually points to in his decision over and over again are the things that were the first time and that he cited to the first time and he just beat it up a little bit by pointing to you know this record or that record of this record cherry picked out the reasons are still insufficient they were insufficient the first time there insufficient the second time around there was a treating doctor lawler who had an opinion his opinion was based on the hip the back the continued pain the need for was going to be another hip replacement in the future because the prior to surgeries were insufficient mr curd and it would not be able to either do his old work which is obvious and i don't think is disputed by any did you want to dr killing notes that the m r i could miss things there is no electromagnetic nerve conduction studies done here and it needs to way where there's two ways of reading the evidence we differ at the right the i do understand that but what dr lawler is being criticized for is not parking about that he's not you know if the ale jay wants to say his interpretation of those m r i s or even if the l j wants to say that the subsequent medical examiner's interpretation of those m r eyes is that there's no impingement and that there's no hip i don't think that's problematic i think what is problematic is when he's saying the reason i'm discrediting this doctor is this doctor didn't specifically discuss these particular is when you have a doctor as a long term treating relationship when you look at the prior m r i eyes existed that when hip replacement was done you're not seeing a tremendous change think that is when it is and there was lollar opining about his condition at that time or the opinion about his condition at the time he signed the report that that seems to be a question that  or the district court had because there's a suggestion that is an opinion about the earlier time or is it an opinion about twenty ten it's i think that it is a current opinion by dr waller because he hasn't said it was a only related to the prior period and in connection with the prior period we already have in his medical records his opinion that mister card then is was unable to resume any work functions and that that was his two thousand and eight opinion if i recall correctly it's not done out as a separate one it's actually is part of the worker's compensation records and i can give the court t and no treatment over the past year and your honor i think that that doesn't go against mr hurd and this in any way and i think it also has to be recalled that that recommendation is coming within the context of the california worker's compensation system and at this point in time you have mr carden is continuing to be treated by opiates which would be contrary to the policies under the workers comp and there's a strong preference to send him back to try to get somebody retrained you know that referral for new vocational training is independent really of whether or not the individual is in fact going to be able to go back to work  pain in continued difficulties with movement and the requirement that he get up periodic liam walk around and the requirement that he be mobile for fifteen minutes out of every ninety none of that is being accounted for in that reference back to vocational training now that the box for which is which the l g a reject the wealth but if you take a look at the reasons for that and it is something that we discuss and i know as a particular source of contention  the government's brief in response you know we in going down and back through everything and picking apart exactly what it was that his medical source said the only places where there was actual conflict or sensually issues of whether the amount of time and the day that he could say it the total amount of weight that he could carry by these a sedentary or whether he's light but whe asked to go back and read a few those opinions based on the medical evidence their expert said on the other things he agrees when he actually if you're talking about actors matter when he gave his limitations he said that mr carter has could stand and walk for four out of eight hours and there were no limitations on sitting and then the subsequent testimony when he he reviewed lawler's check the box form but you can't really tell what he's anxious and he also he says lawler's lamentations were more restrictive and i mean that second testimony clearly call out for some clarification as to what he was saying but the l j could reasonably i don't see why why he would be able to rely on that i don't think you can only take part of it without taking all of it and i do think if nothing else the court is quite correct there is a ton of ambiguity in this case and  yes your honor and in connection with that the l j really is only given to two reasons as i see it when you actually go back and look at his specific statements one is that there is mild objective medical evidence which is not sufficient of itself and then the other is essentially activities of daily living but the things that he points to are all things that the that the ninth circuit has said in cases like ravel's are not sufficient you have to look at how it's being done and there has been no building of a bridge between what he's doing and the amount of time it's taking him and the amount of time of the day that he spends doing it that he can translate that over into the work environment work situation in the us at that well i think there's a critical distinction because in that case what that particular claimant was saying as i recall the case is that they were completely disabled they couldn't do anything and mr condenses never claimed he can't do anything he's claimed there are things he can do what he's claimed is that he has to do it takes him a long time he needs to have the breaks he needs to walk around he needs to be able to get up none of the things that he's doing in his activities of daily living are inconsistent with that there's nothing that under mind and his wife's testimony supports which is that he can do the things for about twenty minutes he tries to help you know but it is not testimony if he's out there gardening he's out there doing this he's out there good morning say bond on behalf of the acting commissioner social security i i guess the point that i would like to make here is that we as regards to dr lawler's opinion the  j accurately and reasonably discounted this opinion because dr lawler did not have an accurate view of the claimants condition during the relevant period within so so the relevant period ended december thirty first two thousand and eight the agency had actually or excuse me the claimant had actually filed two prior applications for disability the last one being adjudicated in april of two thousand and eight so we're talking about approximately an eight month period of time during which the claimant had to prove that he first started to have disabling limitations so we look at the time period during which dr lawler was treating the claimant it ended in august of two thousand and seven and then picked up again i think in october of two thousand and nine so during that relevant period dr lawler had no idea what was going on with the claimant but there were other tricks and that was part of the worker's comp treatment but there were two other treating orthopedic orthopedic doctors who did treat our perform an agreed medical examination of the claimant during two thousand and eight and so you had dr miles conducted the gre medical exam he actually opined that the climate was only precluded from very heavy lifting and so that only envisioned a loss of the lifting capacity of about twenty five percent so that's completely consistent with the l j found he was actually permanent and stationary at that point and it's up to bowen who has concluded that claim it required no active treatment or current active treatment so and then he found that the claim why he couldn't do is past relevant work he should undergo the vocational even admitted after quite a long absence of time so when the a l j was giving the reasons for discounting dr lawyers putting the second time around she really focused on these factors which is that  all the pardon me when did he do that the first one was in two thousand and six i think is like july and then it was may of two thousand and seven so you'd see him for a period of time after that august of two thousand and seven was the last state so we have a considerable gap in time and again its income that period was actually covered by the agency's prior denial of disability applications that was denied in april two thousand and eight so we're talking april two thousand and eight to december of two thousand and eight agreed medical examiner and they were both orthopedists and they actually concluded that the claimant while he can do his pastoral work were all in agreement with that that he could train to do a lighter job so i think under the facts of this case this particular treating doctor dr did not have an accurate view of the claimants condition during the relevant period and i think the way that his responses in the questionnaire worded clearly show that he was thinking about the claimant's condition probably closer to the surgery dates or  i think it's dr color who said that was an accurate there was the x ray and the m r i findings for there was a normal right hip there was mild degenerative changes in the lower back that's all contradictory to what dr lawler sad so that also shows the doctor lawyer didn't have the point well i would first point out that claimant hasn't challenge all of the reasons that the l j gave for rejecting the credibility of the claimant and so to that extent he has forfeited or waived whatever the appropriate term of art would  be excuse me those conditions he said there were only two reasons given one was the mild objective findings and the other was that it was inconsistent with the a d l as were there other well the l g a also talked about again i think it was the considered so again the sorry the l j is referencing again the long absence of treatment that's particularly by dr lawler that's on six thirty two and again on six thirty three we have the lack  is that the claimant actually didn't really challenge in his brief the mild objective findings finding so and again we have the x ray and the m r i that showed there were minimal findings  as late as two thousand and nine so you would think if a claim a claim was having a condition that was deteriorating you would see something on those fine something on those m r i findings and there weren't but i would also say that i don't think you can just isolate that one paragraph avail j s decision when assessing the credibility i think you need to read the context he says this finding is based on the right what do i do do i i would say you can't just look at that paragraph i think we need to look at how the l g was analyzing this record as a whole and it's very clear that she was persuaded by the fact that the claimant did not undergo treatment during the relevant period which expired in two thousand and problem with his hip is restricting his ability to walk the l j had pointed out earlier that i think you said he was walking up like an hour and a half and they were going to stay correct i'm sorry there was a mistake i don't believe that was a mistake there's nobody that comes from the prior reference to a half hour later in the in the but it's regardless the description of the claims ability to walk would be inconsistent with his claims that he is incapable of performing work like work activity so it's well it's the fact that he is claiming that he is so in disabled by pain he says he can't factor that with more than twenty minutes without having that it's solely objective findings now the case law does not allow that but the evidence in this record showed that the claimant did not require treatment for his condition during the relevant period and that is something that that's a theme that runs through the sale days decision now it might not appear in that one paragraph but i do think that this court needs to consider that when looking into the reasons of the l g s us the claimants statements and the daily activities again they don't show that the claimant has to work consistent with work activity but it just needs to show that the claims allegations are exaggerated and i would also point out that during the worker's comp evaluation there was the medical i think agreed medical examiner who said that this claimant tends to exaggerate his symptoms and pain to the o j mentioned in her right that i not sure if it is specifically in the old days findings on the second decision but it is on the record and then you did have doctor opinion that the l g does discuss on three i'm sorry six thirty two to six thirty three which also reinforces the claimant had activities that were that seemed really fairly functional is the way that dr when out as described at the top of six thirty three but i think i think this record as a whole shows that during that eight month period of time you have little treatment and the doctors who actually did provide the treatment concluded that this claimant could should have trained for a lighter level job he did not he did not get any other treatment because he didn't need it during that time thank you  muscle relaxants and everything else that to discredit him for a failure to seek treatment there has to be some evidence in the record that there was some other treatment that was a recommended in available to him and there is no evidence of that in this record it does show that he was manically compliant as well because he was told you need to lose some weight and to the extent that he testified about you know walking earlier that's related to him moving twenty pounds in order to take pressure off of his head following doctor's recommendations doing that is not going out and having a beautiful hike that's part of rehabilitation i will point to a visit over says barry hill a footnote didn't say those reasons apply to the claimant and that wasn't done here it's you know he is you know very credible in connection with what he says his limitations are because he is not saying all they can do is sit and watch t for today and for the week