[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
And we'll start with you, the appellant, Mr. Janic.

[00:00:04] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:00:05] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, my name is Etan Castle Janic, and I'm representing Melvin Swanson in this appeal.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
In February 2020, when ALJ denied Swanson's disability claims, he appealed his denial to district court, and the court reversed ALJ's decision and remanded his claims for new hearing.

[00:00:25] Speaker 03:
After his second hearing, the ALJ found Swanson disabled beginning February 1, 2021, but Swanson has actually been unable to work since December 7, 2016, due to the combined functional effects of his many severe physical and mental impairments.

[00:00:42] Speaker 03:
This case involves the issue of whether the ALJ's non-disability finding between December 2016 and January 2021 is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on harmful legal error.

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
The ALJ erred by improperly rejecting the medical opinions of two medical reviewers, Dr. Packer and Dr. Sidhu.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Mr. Yonich, I do have a question.

[00:01:07] Speaker 01:
I went back and I looked at the prior district court order when the case was remanded and I see a lot of the district court's reasons for remanding are

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
still applicable here.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
The ALJ decision remains largely the same.

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
I'm surprised that you didn't mention that in your briefing.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that the ALJ largely repeated the same errors?

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
Well, yes, he did.

[00:01:31] Speaker 03:
And I suppose I should have mentioned it more strongly in my briefing, but it's an ongoing problem that we have with certain ALJs that when a case is remanded, we end up with a new decision that's... It was striking.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
We sort of put the orders side by side, the opinions side by side, and it's striking to me how similar they were.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
Well, I think, but with talking about ongoing problems, and maybe you can, the district court explained to you that you spent pages of your brief below simply quote unquote summarizing clinical findings, and that was not sufficient to present an argument for judicial review.

[00:02:10] Speaker 04:
But then you did the same thing on appeal on pages 23 through 29 of your opening brief.

[00:02:16] Speaker 04:
Numerous judges keep telling you, including several panels of the Ninth Circuit, have told you that this practice is not appropriate, but you keep doing that.

[00:02:25] Speaker 04:
Why is the message not clearly coming through to you?

[00:02:32] Speaker 04:
You know if we look at why is the wise case that's a Ninth Circuit case also lists various medical findings and asserts that those findings Substantiate opinions, but because that broad assertion is unaccompanied by specific Analysis any argument based on the evidence is waived and I can list other cases So this isn't you're not helping us

[00:02:55] Speaker 03:
Okay, so let me respond.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
And we keep telling you what you have to do and you can't just cut and paste and spit it out and say this proves my case.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
That's not the way it works.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
Right, so the issue here, the problem we have, everyone looks primarily, the best evidence in a social security disability case is the opinion of a treating physician or examining physician.

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
People who have actually treated or examined

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
the individual.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
This case had the unusual problem that there are no treating physician opinions.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
The only examining physician opinion is the opinion from Dr. Ford, who is an examining psychologist, and her opinion was rejected wholesale.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
Now the ALJ's reasoning for rejecting the two opinions we do have, once again, opinions

[00:03:48] Speaker 03:
Are the most important thing i mean there's a if you just have evidence will the judge still have to review everything the judge has to catch just can't just ignore all the evidence that shows that he's is analysis is wrong so in this case the judge the lj.

[00:04:05] Speaker 03:
Look at the examining physician opinions from doctor see you and doctor packer and said well these opinions are not supported by the medical evidence so how do you show that it's not supported by the medical evidence other than by showing.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
all of the clinical findings in the medical evidence that show that indeed these opinions are consistent with all of that.

[00:04:30] Speaker 04:
But all you do is you slap those opinions in there and then you say this supports my case.

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
You don't do the work.

[00:04:36] Speaker 04:
You don't do the heavy lifting.

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
So the thing is, as an example, one of the issues in this case involves the treatment of his migraines.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
And the ALJ said, no, it's not even a severe impairment.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
And so in my arguments, I present the evidence that shows that, yes, indeed, organizational is another thing.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
I mean, I suppose I could have pulled all the migraine evidence out, put it in one block,

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
I kind of think that in your client.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
Counsel, to Judge Callahan's point, I guess this is the thing.

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
We're having to do all of the work.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
We're having to look at all of these opinions and picking out, for example, that Dr. Packers and Dr. Sadu, according to the ALJ, relied on records from findings, findings from records

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
before the relevant period, but that's actually incorrect.

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
And that's not something that you point out specifically to us, but we have to like look for that stuff within the records.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
That's I think what Judge Callahan is pointing to.

[00:05:49] Speaker 03:
and do you think that that criticism is well taken i'm not going to argue about that i could have done a better job of pointing to this uh... organizing unit to make it more clear which evidence but i do argue that they that that they are doing was wrong and i point to the evidence that shows that that uh... that they also relied on evidence that is from the correct time period and armed

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
I realize you're focusing on this issue.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
Like I say, it's a problem I have in every case where there aren't strong medical opinions from people who

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
know who treated the person.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
You kind of have to rely on what opinions you have and then there's a whole bunch.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
The clinical findings that I cite include findings showing the treatment he was getting, he had surgery on his cervical spine.

[00:06:45] Speaker 03:
These are all things that show that there is a basis for the opinions of Dr. Sidhu and Dr. Packer that show that he's limited

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
I mean, the ALJ also mentioned that he was taking opiates, but that was from a decision from, or excuse me, an evaluation from 2016, not the 2020 evaluation.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
So I guess that's the kind of stuff that would be helpful for you to point out to us instead of us having to go on a search and rescue mission to try to find the information within the records that are available.

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
I do point that out in my reply brief that he was citing evidence.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
The government actually pointed to that as well and I said, well, the ALJ cited that, that he was relying on evidence from earlier and that

[00:07:38] Speaker 04:
And I have to point to that evidence as well, even though it's from an earlier period, because the ALJC... Well, let me take you... You're kind of digging in on this, and I don't think you're taking my point, even though other people have taken it.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
But let's go on and talk about... You request a remand for an award of benefits.

[00:07:56] Speaker 04:
But even if we were to credit as true the evidence the ALJ rejected, wouldn't we still need new vocational expert testimony to determine whether there are jobs that your client could have performed with a more limited RFC?

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
No, because at least not since 2018, because as of March of 2018, he was 50 years old.

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
Well, okay, I have that he turned 50 on March of 2020.

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
Am I wrong?

[00:08:28] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
I believe, let me just.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
Well, don't we still need to further determine whether your client was disabled between December 2016 and 2018?

[00:08:42] Speaker 04:
Don't we still have to determine that?

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
Even if you say 2018 or if it's 2020, whatever it is, don't we still have to determine, there's time in here that you're asking for benefits that it does not cover by the presumption.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
Okay, Your Honor, he was 50 years old on June 30th of 2018.

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
Actually, March 18th is the correct date on that.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
So as of March of 2018, he was limited to sedentary work.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
So if you accept that the evidence that the ALJ improperly rejected shows that he's been limited to no more than sedentary work since March of 2018, then

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
There is no other option than a finding of disability based on the medical vocational guidance.

[00:09:31] Speaker 04:
But that doesn't cover, he doesn't get the presumption from December 7th of 2016 to March 1 of 2018.

[00:09:38] Speaker 04:
That is correct.

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
So don't we have to, we have to look at that.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
So how do you get, how do you, how do we give you benefits when there hasn't been, a vocational expert hasn't looked at that time period with a more limited RFC?

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
Well, it's a point well taken.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
But for the prior two years, he would have to prove, and you would have to be able to find that the evidence that was improperly rejected shows that he was unable to perform even full-time sedentary work.

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
And a finding that he could not perform full-time sedentary work does support the award of benefits for that prior period.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
OK, anywhere in the record is there

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
Do we have, we don't have a vocational expert testimony for that period of time before the presumption applies, do we?

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
With a limited RFC.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
And now suddenly I'm gonna become the expert and I'm gonna be the vocational expert and I'm gonna do the limited RFC and say he gets benefits for that period of time.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
Is that what you're asking?

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
No, what I'm saying is that we do have evidence from the vocational expert that a person who has the limitations that Swanson described in his testimony could not perform any work.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
We do have that testimony, so if you would fully accept Swanson's testimony about his need to lie down and his need to change positions,

[00:11:14] Speaker 03:
then yes, that does support a fine of disability.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
If you believe that, this is the court's discretion, if the court believes that there's serious doubt about that earlier time period, then you should not award benefits, but instead should remand.

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
The doctors don't make disability determinations, do they?

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
They don't make the levels of disability determination.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
No, they don't.

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
They determine a person's limitations is all.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
And one of the doctors did conclude that he could not even perform sedentary work.

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
That was Dr. Packer.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
Dr. Sidhu, I think it was more sedentary.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
But none of them said that he was able to do more than sedentary.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
So I'm just pointing out that there, yes, there's options that you could award benefits as of turning 18 in 2000, in turning 50 in 2018 based on this evidence, or you could award benefits if you believe that the evidence shows- Is that presumption rebuttable or is it a non-rebuttable presumption when you turn 50?

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
in in are based on the facts in this case it's not rebuttable because I don't know no no no no I don't want to know whether based on the facts of this case I want to know whether it's a rebuttable presumption or whether it says somewhere it once you turn fifty it is not rebuttable that just its

[00:12:39] Speaker 03:
Yes, it is non-rebuttable.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
The medical vocational guidelines state that if you meet the criteria in those guidelines, it tells you you're either disabled or if you're not disabled, then you have to go on to step five, you have to go to further analysis.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
But if the grid is as people call it, the medical vocational guidelines, if you plug in his age,

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
his limitation to sedentary work, his limited education, his lack of transferable skills.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
And all of this is undisputed.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
OK, we've taken you over your three minutes over your time.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
I want to find out if my colleagues have any additional questions.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
OK, we don't.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
So that takes up your time.

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
I'll consider giving you a minute for rebuttal, depending on what the government says.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Lori Lookless appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Social Security.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
We're asking this court to affirm the judgment of the district court that upheld the ALG's decision in this case, which found that Mr. Swanson was not disabled until February 1st, 2021.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
Now, that's the period we're looking at from December 2016 until February 1st, 2021.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
And Mr. Swanson has not showed that he was disabled during that time period.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that he was not.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
And I would point to looking to the decision as a whole in terms of the ALJ's reference to his money.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
We have to look at the decision in all its parts, including what the ALJ said about Dr. Packer and Dr. Sadu.

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
The judge reasoned that they were relying on findings from the records from before the relevant period.

[00:14:27] Speaker 01:
That's actually incorrect.

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
Would you concede that?

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
I think some of the evidence they were relying on was during the period that's not at issue.

[00:14:38] Speaker 01:
Right, but that's not what the ALJ said, right, as a reason for discounting that.

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
But as you pointed out, Mr. Swanson plaintiff has not, appellant has not argued that.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
And I think they forwarded that argument that the ALJ was incorrect in that regard.

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
They haven't pointed that out.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
And I think that... Did you argue that in your briefing?

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
Did you argue that in your briefing?

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
In our briefing, we argued that the ALJ gave reasons for why

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
The ALJ found that those opinions were not supported.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
But you just argued something else.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
Did you argue the waiver issue?

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
Did you argue that in your briefing?

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
We were responding to plaintiff's arguments, and we did not argue forfeiture as to that issue.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
We did, and plaintiff mentions migraines.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
Plaintiff did not sufficiently brief migraines of severe impairment.

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
The other thing that the ALJ was saying referring to opioid use and that was not part of the 2020 evaluation as well.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
Would you agree on that?

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
I do agree.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
I think the most important thing that the ALJ looked at with the opinions of Dr. Packer and Dr. Siddhu were that they were inconsistent with activities daily living.

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
And those opinions were offered in 2018.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
And in 2018, we have the most evidence of his robust daily activities.

[00:15:53] Speaker 04:
Well, let me ask you this.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
You can go ahead.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
The first district court, we have the same ALJ, but two different district courts, okay?

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
And the first district court in this case held that the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical evidence and in rejecting Mr. Swanson's testimony.

[00:16:13] Speaker 04:
In the ALJ's second decision, what did the ALJ do to cure the defects identified in the first district court's decision?

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
It seems like, I mean, when you write a long decision and you tell someone what they did wrong, and then it goes back, it would seem like, unless you want, what do they say?

[00:16:36] Speaker 04:
Insanity's doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
Well, unfortunately here, there was a different district judge, and insanity did give a different result.

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
But the ALJ didn't seem to respond to what the first district court said was problematic.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
The judge did give similar analysis as to those opinions in 2018, but the ultimate decision is quite different.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
And the same court, although different judges, the same district court did affirm that decision.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
And again, appellate doesn't make that argument in their briefing.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
We didn't directly respond to that argument because it wasn't briefed.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
And the ALJ did find in the second decision something quite different.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
The ALJ found that Mr. Swanson was disabled, that he was disabled on February 1st, 2021.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
But then he has the benefit of the presumption when it goes back at that time, right?

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry?

[00:17:39] Speaker 04:
Well, the first time he wasn't 50, right?

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
So when he goes back the other time and gets found disabled,

[00:17:46] Speaker 04:
He gets the presumption, right?

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
I mean, I do want to clarify in terms of what Appalant has said.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
When we look at the medical vocational guidelines and somebody is 50 years old and they're limited to sedentary work or a range of sedentary work, they're not automatically disabled.

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
We look to see what was their past relevant work.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
Was it sedentary?

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
Can they do that?

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
So they get a presumption, though, of being disabled.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
Right?

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
But it's a rebuttable presumption.

[00:18:14] Speaker 04:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
That's what I was asking.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
It depends on what their past relevant work was, whether they have any transferable skills.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
Well, no.

[00:18:22] Speaker 04:
You can have presumptions that if you're 50, end of story here.

[00:18:28] Speaker 04:
But that's not the case with this presumption?

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
You're saying, but you get a different look

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
You fall into a different category once you turn 50, right?

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
It is a different age category, yes.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
And so the fact that he gets found disabled the second time that he's there isn't entirely surprising because now he's 50, right?

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
Well, it's less surprising because we have more evidence showing that his condition has worsened and we have his testimony.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
detailing that.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
And the ALJ directly relies on the decision on the testimony that he gave that it was worsening in that time in 2021.

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
And then the objective medical evidence shows with imaging and objective examinations, the ALJ states, treatment is not as effective as it once was.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
So treatment was effective during the period at issue here.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
Examinations were relatively benign.

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
Well, Counsel, I don't want to talk about generalities.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
I want to talk about specifics.

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
And specifically here, the ALJ

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
set aside the opinions of Dr. Sowell and Staley because he found that those opinions, specifically the opinion of him needing to change positions and several times an hour due to hip pain and limited remaining postural positions to be unpersuasive because there was no evidence of the use of a cane prior to 2021.

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
What does that matter?

[00:19:57] Speaker 01:
What does that matter?

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
Well, he says the cane, but he also says because of plaintiffs, I'm sorry, Mr. Swanson's, his functionality, his demonstrated functionality, the ALJ states that, not just the lack of a cane.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
But I think the lack of a cane also goes to his overall subjective complaints that I need to use a cane.

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
I can't sit for any period of time, which is just completely contradicted by the record.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
What specific functionality are you referring to in the record that you can point me to?

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
The need to change position.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
And so in terms of, I mean, in... No, you just said that that was because of his functionality.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
Where in the record are you?

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
What area?

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
Functionality.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
So that I can find it.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
So in terms of his functionality, he's demonstrated his ability to do certain things.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
So in 2018, he's

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
He's working at Lowe's.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
He's doing housework.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
He's working on cars.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
He's functioning.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
Let's stop here.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
Let's stop here.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
This work at Lowe's, which, again, it's sort of like I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how much was he working?

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
Was it one day he made $162?

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
Where do we know whether it was just the one day or more?

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
And in fact, it's my understanding that

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
He experienced severe debilitating pain afterwards.

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
How does that show that he's not disabled?

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
So we don't have, Mr. Swanson doesn't point into the record where it was just one day.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
You do mention the amount of money he made, so that would seem to be in line with their assertion that it was one day.

[00:21:38] Speaker 00:
Would there be any other?

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
But he's also working on cars.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
So just after surgery, days after surgery, he's working on cars.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
He says working on cars throughout 2018 and 2019 is an opportunity to exercise his neck.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
He's functioning really well, and that's at the same time where we have, even if it's just one day at Lowe's, we have him working on cars.

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
Aren't there the same indications after he says he's working on his car that he has debilitation after he works on his car?

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
Aren't those also in the record?

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
He does say that, but he continues to do it.

[00:22:09] Speaker 04:
Well, that's part of the evidence, though, I guess.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
He worked at Lowe's, worked on his car, and did some home renovations.

[00:22:17] Speaker 04:
But those records also indicate that Mr. Swanson experienced a high level of pain after those activities and had abnormal exam findings.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
So don't those records actually suggest that Mr. Swanson was unable to perform those activities?

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
Well, I think they could, but in this case, if we look to, I would ask the court to look to the 2012 and 2016 decisions where he was making the same allegations.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
He had similar work activity.

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
He was teaching his nephew how to do remodel work.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
He's been riding a motorcycle for a really long time, and he's been riding a motorcycle into 2023.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
And he says pain medication enables him to ride a motorcycle.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
When it went back though, Council, when it went back, why not ask, why not ask, hey,

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
How long did you work at Lowe's?

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
Hey, tell me about your daily... Why wasn't that asked by the magistrate judge in this case?

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, by the ALJ when it went back.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
I think the ALJ, when it went back, was really trying to determine at what point did you become disabled, like explain to me when it worsened.

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
And so the ALJ sought that testimony and Mr. Swanson described, you know, like two and a half years ago, it got really bad.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
It got to the point where I couldn't do the things I used to be able to do.

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
And when you do the math from the August 2023 hearing with that testimony, it brings us to February 2021.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
And so I think the ALJ was trying to elicit testimony to understand this case better and perhaps could have asked more about that Lowe's work activity, but also got into a long conversation near the end of that hearing about his use of a motorcycle.

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
And it just did seem to demonstrate that his abilities were much greater than he was alleging.

[00:23:56] Speaker 04:
Let's assume hypothetically that we don't agree with you and that it has to go back.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
What is your position on award of benefits or whether other things have to be done for that period of time?

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
I think absolutely other things have to be done.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
We need further testimony on the work activity and the other activities of daily living.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
He also mentioned I was seeking custody of my grandchildren.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
How old were your grandchildren?

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
Depending on their age, that could imply a much greater ability than he's alleged.

[00:24:23] Speaker 04:
Does a vocational expert, as I asked your friend on the other side, have to look at

[00:24:29] Speaker 04:
a different RFC for that period of time?

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
They have to look at all the evidence during the period at issue.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
And that'll include in new testimony, which could lead to a different RFC and could lead to different vocational expert testimony responses.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
Well, if we remand, why can't we say that the level of disability has been established through the credit as true rule and the only thing that we're looking at is available occupations?

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
I don't think we can do that because of the activities of daily living that we have, and because there's still things that we need to resolve with the... In this case, you're saying you disagree based on the facts, but is there a reason why we couldn't do that if we disagree with you?

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
You can do whatever you like, Your Honor, but I... We like to do the right thing.

[00:25:21] Speaker 04:
We like to do the right thing.

[00:25:23] Speaker 04:
I appreciate that.

[00:25:25] Speaker 04:
OK, any additional questions?

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
All right, your time's over, and thank you for your argument.

[00:25:31] Speaker 04:
Do either side have a minute that they want to ask?

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
Mr. Janic, any questions?

[00:25:38] Speaker 04:
All right, we don't have any additional questions, Mr. Janic.

[00:25:40] Speaker 04:
We took you over time as well, so this matter will now be submitted.

[00:25:44] Speaker 04:
Thank you both.