leader evidence containing new and significant medical diagnoses could recently have changed the reviewing positions opinion next in this case we have the two assessments by dr paul we have the one in march of two thousand however he goes through the assessment and states that he's not going attacked for a job absences but the remainder of the opinion he states is consistent with the record and that he's going to adopt it that the judge leaves out two specific so there the judge has failed to build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and result with respect to the august two thousand and fourteen opinion the judge is there in substituting his own not going to improve that is prognosis is poor we have an x ray at the record it seventy two that mr a doctor call reviews and states that there is now degeneration of the disc above where he had the lumber surgery that's explaining some of the symptoms we have dr paul around the same time that he has operate this assessment sending mr lambert back to his pain management specialist to start doing ph manage pain management treatment again so there certainly is object of evidence on the surgery and that mr lambert explains at the hearing i was trying to walk i was trying to rehabilitate myself but by february of two thousand and fourteen he goes back to dr paul and says i'm starting to have problems in my my right hip now so there's overlapping issues in this case because nationally it was the fact problem he was having what they diagnosed as failed back syndrome but then during the course of treatment it's determined that he's having the sacroiliac problems as well so that's treated and then towards degeneration above where he had the lumbar spine surgery back in two thousand and seven could you address those internationals i'm assuming well in terms of the daily activities if you look at the daily activities it's poor rationale because the judge in his credibility assessment states that mr testimony to you stating that he's going to really limited activities in terms of of the actor we don't have any evidence of job absences because he wasn't working at the time but we certainly have multiple wouldn't have to certify that he was ready willing and able to work i think hearing the judge then sad that he he founded first that someone would against someone's credibility and that that he would take on employment and disability at the same time he recommended that mr lambert file or amend his onset date to avoid the issue that he saw in his mind which when the receipt of unemployment and social security that disability benefit clear that the judge had recommended it on his on a poor day and i think this is contrary to the holding and scram that the judge is supposed to look carefully at the issues as to why someone is to apply for disability benefit series disability means you've been laid off correct so in this case the judge said that if you were laid off when you file for unemployment you need to certify that you're ready willing and able to work so mr lambert offered his explanation that he had worked out with his employer that how they're going to be treated by either system and it's not i don't see why it's unreasonable to try both parties over safety correct thank you thank you thank you please the court i'm allison schwartz and i represent the commissioner since this is where we left off i'm just going to quickly jump in on the unemployment issue the reason why the unemployment issue is on the table is because mr lambert was collecting unemployment during the same period that he was alleging to be disabled and that was a true year period and if you are telling the social security administration that you are disabled you are firming to them that you're unable to work so what mr lambert was doing was telling the state of wisconsin on the one hand that he was ready willing and able to come back to work while on the other hand telling the social security administration that he is physically unable to work he was not actually collecting social security benefits or disability benefits true period was a he was no but he was collecting unemployment benefits during that period but when you apply for social security benefits you pick an alleged onset date and the end is the date you allege you became disabled and in this case you may wait for far of years before you can  x true but you still have to affirm during that period that you're unable to work now i'm going to jump back and discuss the medical sources opinions in this case  as mr lambert's counsel mentioned that the l j relied on a state agency doctor who review who issued an opinion before a good amount of the medical evidence was generated no that's true but th residual functional capacity assessment is almost completely on all fours with mr lambert's treating physicians opinion and the x the march two thousand and fourteen opinion that mr the treatin physician mr paul issued regarding mr lambert's physical condition now and they have pinion mr paul opined that mr lambert could perform sedentary work would be off task ten sedentary work with a cane the same standing sitting and walking maximum limitations and allowed him to be off task ten percent of the work day now the r c did not include a sit stand action however the vocational expert testified that even if the sit stand option were included mr lambert would still be able to perform a significant number of jobs mr lambert's counsel had just mentioned that there were a couple  limitations that the l g did not include from mr paul's opinion and one of them was that mr that mr paul opined i think is dr i'm sorry you're right thank you that at a functional capacity of valuation that was after the second surgery in july of two thousand and fourteen that evaluation actually was for sedentary work with preceding but there was not a reason for dr paul to change his opinion between the two periods at issue well i understand archery and i understand your center in spain i understand that he had a second surgery but the medical evidence shows that he recovered well from that surgery and if you look to one of these surgeries have been successful in alleviating his pain this is a failed surgery case if you look at the evidence as before they are jay can only look at evidence that's before him and this starts in january of two thousand and thirteen and runs through july of two thousand and fourteen mr lambert needed to show that he was on able to work during a twelve month period and if you look at the treatment mr lambert had after he had his first surgery he said he felt great he was walking he was going to work out at the gym then his right side pain came back he had surgery on his right side after he had surgery on his right side and he went through a course of physical therapy  he was doing well if you look at some of his statements to his physical therapist he was walking a full mile before having the stop due to pain and this was after the second surgery on june tenth he had no same day as his functional capacity assessment he told the physical therapist that he had pain because he was riding his bike and he could walk for just over a mile before stopping due to pain so you know mr lambert has limitations and the elegy accommodated those by limiting him to a sedentary r f c with the cane with a ten percent off task amount of additional brak that he was limited to fifteen minutes of sitting or standing in a time needed to change places positions frequently could hardly lift five pounds and there are tremendously increased need for accommodations  review dr paul subsequent opinions against the record and determine whether it's consistent with the record and dr paul says suggested in his opinion that he was basing it i know in july two thousand and fourteen functional capacity evaluation but that evaluation suggested that that mr lambert can work if he could shift positions every fifteen minutes now as a mentioned before that isn't included in see but it isn't work precludes serve because the vocational expert testified that even if mr lambert would was had to shift positions at will he would still be able to work would i'm going to transition back to that mr lambert argument that his condition worsened and as i mentioned before you have to look and see then in july although he was complaining of debilitating pain there is treatment records sporadically throughout the record to his physical therapists that he was doing tremendous amounts of walking so  you know those are inconsistent with dr hall's july and august two thousand two thousand and thirteen limitations that mr lambert cannot work at like to turn also to mr lambert's subjective symptoms that allergy found again mr lambert was very limited but he was not disabled because the record and in july of two thousand and fourteen right is he saying that his pain is recurring so that there's nothing to l j could just look at the record in front of him if mr lambert's condition indeed worsened the that that i believe mr lambert was given benefits for a subsequent period but that's now before the court the this is not the amended onset date in this case no the amended onset date deals directly with  of unemployment benefits mr lambert received ultimately filed for disability several years later and this is in the reply brief we have not heard if i did this with the agency but he received benefits for a subsequent period but the period before the court is just this you know sixteen month period and nail jamie needs to see evidence that he was disabled for at least twelve months and short of that there's there was no evidence to find that he was just able to view have no further questions i would just ask the court affirm the district court's opinion thank you functional capacity in determining his own was what mr lambert is or isn't capable of doing but he is likely to improve in the future of it and that shouldn't be replace the object of evidence the object of evidence at the time is that he's reporting ongoing pain the x rays showing some degeneration and the physical fair fair therapy assessment is putting him not it at fifteen i mean if you look objective lee fifteen i'm sitting fifteen standing but it says load a sedentary and he's he's limited