doctors agree with one possible exception doctor then more even though i think she agreed with some limitation he could work as long as any lifting involved in less  than twenty pounds and i think they said that he could perform sedentary light work also now given that how can we conclude that he is he isn't able to unless there's an issue about getting to the alternative hold in which and that's why i asked him a question really tell part of the story here the claimant testifies actually that the reason that he was unable to do the past job of a virus or insurance manager was what the sedentary type of jerk was  the side effects of this medication the sentinel or the percocet that he's been taking caused him to be drowsy that is why it was foggy and that he didn't feel that he would have answer that is where you go on this is as i related the testimony consisted of a pretty long course of treatment for pain and i interpret and you correct me if i'm wrong or design correct i interpret the l g s problem was that he or objective findings but for something like pain the need to have some objective medically based finding so cancel can you want let's go back to your statement that the medicines were having a effect on him he was taking some pretty powerful medication you said that those medications created non exertion medical testimony from any doctor that said well we don't look at whether we can lift ten pounds or not or we don't look as whether we consider staying in for so many hours rather his mind is foggy and he was taking some giving him they gave him percocet which is a street drugs are pretty powerful thing pike in other very powerful drugs like comeback i think is there any testimony in the record concerning non exertion the limitations that flow from the consistent with the as a finding of the the medium level of for credit manager or credit analyst probably doable i mean i think a good hunk of your time is he's probably sitting down in an eight hour day at doesn't seem unreasonable to be limited four you have to look at his ability to think to concentrate the headaches and the ability to sustain you know that level of mental activity over the period of time so i don't think that the administrative law judge has properly looked at any medical evidence and said well he doesn't have the problems of pain so on and to do during the day in the hell jay was reviewing that he expressed basically a disbelief in what he was here the really challenge the credibility of the player he implied more than  implied he said the plaintive was over blowing the limitations what do you make of that what basis in the record was there for a finding that the plaintiff was or is there a basis in the record for disbelieving the plaintiff when he testifies as to what he can or cannot do during the day and in fact the we can argue that the al pain that agree i'm hearing from that pain he didn't believe in the second part that i believe is not based in any of the local reports or opinions the judge doesn't point to anything as i said other than that one statement in a physical therapists report and the day of pain really doesn't explain why that one statement is some evidence that the claim is faking or exaggerating his symptoms themselves can give rise to police and you have to be very careful about subjective objective medical evidence for something that doesn't necessarily follow somebody can be in severe pain and have a totally normal m underlying pathology would give rise to this kind of pain he's not necessarily going to find that it does not rely upon the treating physician well in this case your honor the while it is a correct statement of law that in a l j that some subjective complaints may not be proven with objective radical evidence this court has held recently in johnson v commissioner that objective medical evidence can disprove a claim that subjective complaints in other words there could be medical this the third circuit is clearly held in burns and i don't have a full site right now but the drowsiness often accompanies the take in medication and i trowe xena's is not per se disabling unless there is evidence of record to support that dro doctor done more specifically identify the narcotic medication and still concluded that point it could perform sedentary work dr reinhardt his own primary care physician fully aware plaintiff's prescription medications also conclude that he could perform a potentially light medium work so this is evidence which is showing that these doctors are fully aware of the medications and that these medications are not disabling and according to third circuit precedent that that  from that page and also on the next page the l j was identifying the treatment notes from dr lee doctor now get and other physicians and looking at those objective clinical findings which i mentioned earlier and so six and option was necessary in fact he said that he could do for our doctor dunmore didn't identify said stance option so i think that that's it's an option is suggested that the l t a did seriously consider that the they considered it within the object the medical when the l j m was looking at that pinney he wasn't saying that the medical opinion was one year later what he was doing was looking at that medical opinion in relation to the subsequent medical evidence so the l g wasn't saying that that opinion was delivered out in october of two thousand and five what he was doing was he was looking at the opinion that was given and looking at the lists of the treatment notes as i mentioned earlier there was that dr done more in february of two thousand and six plaintiff identified no chest pain and that led dr done more to the conclusion that there were no hearts and minds at that time so the l j wasn't necessarily looking at the opinion or believing that the opinion was incorrectly dated the l g was actually just reviewing it in relation to the  subsequent medical evidence the second reason is that as the as the l j noted and as the district court noted that even if you give this opinion full weight it still is consistent with the two prior relevant jobs so i think on that level i don't think that the after considering the evidence of record the undersigned finds of the climate's medically to terminal parents could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms but that the claim in statements concerning the intensity persistence and limiting effect of these symptoms are not entirely credible but then he goes on to say based on a doctor's report but on a physical therapist statement he goes out the say that something called an s c m insertion of pain at the mastoid process is bilateral the intensity persistence and women in effect those three things first density persistence in the meaning of these symptoms are not entirely credible and there's nothing to suggest this is somebody with a particularly low  working and so therefore when the l g made that statement he was identifying that it's not entirely credible that the intensity and of being disabling pain was fully credible the l j then look at the medical evidence and a sits and option now that as i mentioned that limitation exceeded what every medical thing in the record stated so by ceding what every medical opinion stated it does not show that the l g was simply ignoring his subjective   dr reinhardt could perform a range of white medium work and those were the medical opinions and those opinions that if they believed that point of couldn't stand for four hours then dr reiner was totally capable of are you referring to some claim clinical evidence other than the physical therapists observation that was written earlier absolutely your honor in that though in the decision the a l  them but in this case the determination the point of could performance pass relevant work was supported by substantial evidence and this was consistent with all of the treating all the physicians of record and therefore the commission lee so on gives reasons why he didn't believe or accept their conclusion is that the district court did find that the judge is wrong in rejecting all that medical  separate his credibility findings look at his rejection of the medical evidence that he is the m j credited or some of the medical evidence very likely would have i think a lucchese or probably is required