retreating cardiologists and instead improperly adopted the opinion of dr joe r who is a not examining cardiologist can you explain something to me she's already fifty six years old when she applies for benefits yes and there had to show was a little less if you fell in this category if it is but it depends on the circumstances if a person is capable of going back to work that they used to do pastoralism work something i've done in the past fifteen years then those lessons standards don't apply so in this case the l g a found at step four that she was capable of returning to work that she had done in the past been like a receptionist or something yet she was a receptionist in a loan sitting and the vocational expert testified that if she had to elevate the leg while sitting she wouldn't be capable of doing those jobs as she did in the past so if you weren't capable of doing the job that she used to do then it would move to step five and that different standard would apply for her ok ok so why isn't the question whether she needs to elevator i guess he winds up because she can't apparently afford the stance and there were a few issues with the medication there was one medication apparently she couldn't afford and she also explains that that because of the chronic kidney disease she wasn't lars and then moves on and that's it so she doesn't that she doesn't ever specifically state the way and she never applies the regulatory factors which she's supposed to apply and determining what weight to give to any medical source  and application of those factors shows the doctor ometer his opinion should be entitled to great weight he was a treating source five or six times over a period of two years and he was also volunteering his time as he explained she had no money  to a couple examinations in the record apparently one where there was saying there was normal normal neurological findings and then says that that's inconsistent with dr freeman's assessment that she was so limited in standing and walking inconsistency and why she relied on that jacked dr premiums assessments that is until j essentially saying that if she has a job where she can just sit someplace all day long a sedentary job presumably you know she can get up every so often to get up a bunch timer for a coffee break that she's capable of doing that so yes she's saying if you know just limited to sedentary work within the parameters of dr joe or opined she would be capable of returning  to i think it was two thousand and two showing that she had swelling that legalization was necessary and swelling the elevation seems a very straightforward thing to do about swelling and it wasn't just for swelling she also testified that helped to relieve the pain so it wasn't just sewing we're talking about  there is some indication from her testimony that over the prior two years from the date of the hearing it again more painful may have been more swelling but it appears that the swelling had been there for quite a while and she testified that she was able to work with it for a  looking at her entire record and all these doctors including doctor on the jury that also dr freeman whose report i don't see is inconsistent i find it astounding to think that she could perform even sedentary work she's got these terrible problems with her legs that come from whatever they come from you know her obesity or her a peripheral arterial disease or her other conditions and it's hardly rocket science to think that if you need that if your legs are all swollen you might need to elevate them that's just gravity you know most for repealing surprising newton i don't see it well your honor that l j was faced with a very complex case with a huge record and for that reason she sought the aid of a medical expert who was able to look at the entire record as well as listen to the claimants testimony at the hearing is that was the medical expert that was testifying at the hearing considered all of the that record evidence and all the the medical tests that measured whether her blood flow in her legs and  the clinical findings from her doctors and from the examining physicians that showed no edema for most of the most of the record shows no edema during the period at issue and there where there is a d m i it's only a trace amount two reports where she had one of the test various parts of your your lower extremities and and at one point she had like a light touch sensory loss but for the most part it was normal sensory findings and that would go along with you know the analysis of whether there was an impact from an impairment on her functioning and dr julie where did a very thorough analysis of why dr amador a's restriction for leg problems walking she gets this varicose vein bursting in her lower left leg she's in the i don't know the doppler test the show that she had normal blood flow and that she didn't have deep angiogram also that was normal that dr joel warheads said that that shows that she has good blood flow in her legs so the claim that she absolutely needed a stent is i think called into question by those normal blood that and in examining our brain of treating physicians assessment and and also the the doctor indicated that the judge defines didn't really support the level of restriction that she was claiming  so that calls into question whether she really needed all of those restrictions and the l g a did give her a very extensively restricted r c her residual functional capacity was limited to a sudden teary work with some exten as well as examining physicians clinical findings as well as an opinion from the examining physician dr carlton and dr freeman thinks that her history of nice surgeries leaves her effectively  incapable of walking she really can't walk very far right but the doctor that doctor also when asked about her objective medical findings listed an ability to walk fifty feet without a cane and normal neurological findings including normal strength and not normal motor function and normal sensory responses and also normal ranges of an emotion so the claimant had knee  you're all right thank you very much anything further mr ma yes i'd like to add a couple of things quickly another reason for the leg a location was the combination of the chronic kidney disease and the peripheral arterial disease as you mention in the brief there is a combination of those two even if they're only of mild to that somehow though to her functional work capacity we have to link that in particular i guess to the need to keep the legs up versus treat both the renal condition and the legs and some other way correct but with with may recognize some degree dr freeman who he does have specialized knowledge in this area he and dr jill are appeared to interpret the same data differently and dr freeman does have specialization in this area and that's something we have they never really deals with in the decision