hall for a considerable period of time are up to the date last insured which was december thirty first two thousand and twelve and even up to the hearing date you treating literally treated and literally any hearing date for ok in any event it is some of the reasons this was just plain wrong that he indicated since consistent with other medical what other medical is inconsistent with indicated well she said that but my feeling is that based on some of the other things she said about the pain generation is inconsistent and there's nothing that she and she doesn't point to anything that shows that she could do light work in any record of any provider that indicates he can't work and the treating physician will have to be given precedence and there is nothing that the a l j said that would indicate that  your morning my name is christy on behalf of the acting commissioner as an initial matter dr luke and was not the only principal treating doctor for mr hot dr luke and during the period at issue in this case is march of two thousand and seven to december of two thousand swap dr mr hall's treating physician during that relevant from the time he started in march of two thousand and eleven through the date last unsure which is december of two thousand and twelve hall argues that for example dr heller didn't do anything to support her opinion that in spite of his superior back pain and his possible need for future well as her opinion that he could nevertheless perform like work and in recognition of that pain the l j limited mr hall too in the r f c he could do thirty minutes of sitting and thirty minutes were not supported by substantial evidence for example the objective evidence supports the l g s decision in two thousand and ten mr hall had a consultative examination with dr jane wherein he had  full muscle he had a full range of motion in his legs and they were and there was no issues with his mobility moreover when he reported to his pain doctor to whom dr m him because of his ongoing pain mr hall told dr back that he pain was well controlled with his medication he just had a little bit of breakthrough pain and that the physical therapy was working moreover all of the opinion evidence other than dr lukins opinion supports the l g s decision we had the initial functional capacity evaluation exam compared functional capacity evaluation to two thousand and eight which was endorsed by dr maizes the treating spinal surgeon in both august of two thousand and eight and then again in august of two thousand and ten subsequently dr  november of two thousand and eleven dr hall i mean dr heller evaluated mr hall and all of his records and said that he could perform light work dr lukins most recent opinion that he was the doctor that mr hall was off work was and was only three months later in february of two thousand and twelve so the argument that this functional capacity evaluation remote in time to be relevant is not accurate given the way that the treaters and examiners are updating their opinions with reference to his ability to work to do night work as outlined in the functional capacity evaluation mistaken i can ask you to comment on one one aspect of dr lukins is that that there were no there was no consideration of the factors in the regulations the regulations you know in particular  he or another but you still have you know dr luke and recommending on four separate occasions or concluding on four separate occasions that mr hall is unable to work so does the combined effect of those points trouble you at all you're referring to the for the for reasons that the l g used to support his decision right it doesn't trouble me at all as an initial matter each of dr lukins opinions and the record is a one page where he simply check mar there's a there's a section that says level of work activity and he simply extracts no work on four separate occasions so while that is an opinion we the a l j went to great lengths to  opinion came about because of sympathy and he traced the relationship between mr hall and dr luke in and under our regulations and they owned a supposed to examine the nature of the relationship th how a doctor got to how the patient got to a doctor and he tracked that all the way through the opinion with each of these doctors to evaluate the extent to which they were independent or maybe less so but the primary problem with dr levy and opinion is the fact that it's not supported by objective evidence or any of the other opinion evidence are there any other questions an internist and possibly the fake that he has he had some sympathy because he had a worker's comp case or something like that that's just wrongful those are not the kind of factors that are supposed to be considered referral by the internist no the main thing that use a neurosurgeon his opinions are based on his specialty and the failure to give more than a little weight was attacked by the