scarring on an epidural fibrosis which would cause a problem called a failed back it was reversed it came back they called the ve they've each said there are certain jobs you could do he pick specific jobs every one of those jobs is a job to which i julie and i'm looking for my notes to find the exact pave but the ideology basically said he finds the rules for late individuals to be problematic he did not want to follow them he did not want to follow the circuit rules it got to the appeals council a second evidence to support this mission was my recollection of a national like that again the the second issue was they've asked now to go back and have a third bite at the apple they cite from the cd case it's kind of strange to see the case from the first district court has me there it is just a court makes is that once you have this information that supports the disability and of spacetime testimony or evidence that has blatantly disregarded by an l j who has every propensity to deny from day one if you look at the scheme of things in s what you have is evidence you must accept once you accept it and apply it to the facts of this case you have an individual for whom there was an immense vocational work up it does not support the commissioner it's of course the claimant i agree with the standard can it can the climate you know any other job available the national economy but when you determine you can't do any other job and you have to resort to a vocational expert then when you have occasional africa on behalf of the commissioner says you can do x y z jobs every single job was refuted and for the worker's comp claim there was an immense amount of occasional information that child he can't do it doesn't have the physical capacity to  made dozens of other errors it wouldn't bother to look at them correct they said it based the basically that the district court based on the error that they were focusing on did not abuse discretion in remaining on the basis of that air and therefore there was th areas the government was gracious enough to acknowledge there are other areas that the district judge made an error and i'm not recognizing ok we're not prohibited i gather from what you say from saying to reject an opinion of the treating physician that's inconsistent with his treatment use or treatment notes and prior opinions correct correct oh that's what all that happened here well what happened here is a person had a progressive disability and he got worse toward the end which is not such a surprising wondering whether they're out of consideration as to whether or not to send him back around as we were not natural thing about a forty five year old man whom i lived for another you know thirty or forty years with these benefits when we know roughly how much they're going to be you can give me a number  treating physician say that that mr silver was capable of working as a telemarketer but he just didn't want to do it yes he did make that same he said that that he was capable of working as a security guard because he didn't want to do it he had a you know he had a more interesting jobs for writing and he said some other doctor said that he was negative about getting rehabilitation and wanted to be one of them a pension right  isn't the evidence such that the proper decision would be to say that that although it's unfortunate mr silver has this problem there was work it could do in the national economy and it wasn't the path that seems to be where the work most most of the evidence points to not to say other not the same thing as being released as not having a disability that sort of give it a shot and see how it goes ninety seven face cost versus california for this gentleman went out and he tried he wanted to succeed he wanted to get a degree had like five or eight hundred dollars into this class for doing one of his witness was steven cochran steven cochran had been a prior claim if you've been a window washer who had suffered an injury i think in one of those window carts fell testified it was my former clients i recall but he testified at the hearing because he was a friend of the claimant and they were both in the security guard class and he pointed out that this individual had a problem you couldn't get in and out of the tar out of the as well he could not perform the job he wanted to go into a job thinking he could go because he'd been a drywall worker that he could go out and he could do something and not be disabled then the issue of child marketer came out well i'm looking at page two forty one if this is just fine i think we should take him out of the training program have him consider other options i'll see him back in clinic i returned to the clinic  far as he could to any circuit to find rules that he could use and rejected the treating physicians and i was a very good nurses because the treating physician accepted the subject probably talking maybe for three hundred a month we're talking a reduced amount because social security muscularly calculation and take into account so the injustice is heightened for a lesser amount if as you have we succeeded this gentleman thank you both very much