levels since january two thousand and eight due primarily to the functional effects of bipolar disorder she fell for disability benefits in august two thousand and eleven their claim was denied by a l j in march  fifteen which she alleges ability since march nd two thousand and thirteen which is the day after the previous ails a's the ship decision that is the claim that is before this court today lowen nd claims denied by a t just as a side note chavez talks all about race you caught it but it actually is dealing with collateral stoffel to a large extent just doesn't call that's why i've been talking about both of those with viewing it the problem is that the district court use it in correct harmless error legal analysis and the reason the error is not harmless is because we don't know sitting here what that ail jane would have done if she had done it right although we know is that she we know that she did it wrongly just report found that she get it wrong she should not have applied ch consequential ok it was certainly consequential in her decision because every every finding in her decision was based on the assumption asking well are you worse now than you were then look claiming mrs low and freely admitted no i'm no worse now but the point is she was just able before and she still disable now the elder was asking the wrong questions under chavez because the issue is not whether or not lower he got worse the issue is what did the evidence surely if she was worse if she had been found to be by the previous sale would be a different e mail jay but setting that aside any l j review in the us would have to look at the entirety of the evidence that's i think the problem is if you're looking at what's new between how things were then how things are now if you exclude from the record all the evidence that showed how things were then how do you show how do you make that kind of comparison judgment but the other issue which i alluded to a moment ago is that the fact that lho and freely admits that she was it worse she was just as bad currently as she was at the time  the evidence including the testimony to determine what way to make a new determination now i should mention you and you pointed this out that we have to because they would have to be using the chad as a r really and the st step would be to overcome that she has to show that there are changed circumstances changed circumstances is defined as new evidence there's tons of new habitants here that's what doesn't make any the all of the evidence as a whole and any catches look at it if there's one piece of evidence in the file it says something but there's a one thousand pieces of evidence that contradict it the one piece isn't enough  then the a l j would be compelled to apply chavez again so we know how this case would turn out this is a closed period of disability meaning the question is only issue much of the assignment of error stems from the argument that because the a l j consistently one thousand no change of circumstances and voted this point throughout the decision that we don't know if the what the l j would do if this case won back or what the elgin would ultimately do but as the st circuit decided and boateng in fact we do will because we would be remanding for the meaningless gesture of the l j to not apply this court's now final is correct that those constitute substantial of that it is more than the scintilla and the supreme court reach a peace that reaffirms that that is a very low standard and contrary to the presentation it isn't backed consistent with other evidence in the record when she went to see her primary psychologist dr antalya consistently reported that there was no change in circumstances she consistently found that she had fared a good memory and after her divorce she was ultimately volunteer and again and attending her group sessions doing yoga and these are the same found on her exams no evidence of taishan depression or anxiety so this bolen's testimony is in fact consistent with other evidence in the record changes in the her age what could affect the application of the commissioner's roles d but as far as worsening that is a direct quotation from chavez that she must show a worse g of her condition to show a change in circumstances as to the evidence itself and so your harmless error argument here is that if there are facts as she testified at the hearing that there's been no change in circumstances then the error is also busy all harmless as a matter busy of common sense because it would be inconsistent for the l j to reach  differing conclusions here when as a claim it says nothing is changed from the prior decision difficult isn't it for us to assess whether that decision was in fact prejudicial this answer your st question as does the commissioner concede error on that point the argument is framed as one of harmless error because the a l j did not apply the program operation correct decisions leading up to that point then we would just be remaining for the you know meaningless exercise of having a different vocation watch for identify the same jobs and chavez and two that the error was harmful because there are d was a change in circumstances or d there she did her boss a presumption then yes we would have to remand for a new proceeding because there were presumably be a different residual functional capacity assessments which would affect different jobs but if the sole issue is aired and applying the presumption and then unless the court has any other d d questions i would ask that the court affirm because this woman has said that nothing has changed from the prior decision and this court previously affirmed that prior decision was correct thank you and king first i'd like to address what opposing counsel said about the prior file and they don't want to get this prior filed messing into the current file there is evidence from the prior file in the current file so why is there some evidence from the prior file in the current file but all this other evidence just very significant which showed g compensations in severe police being all sorts of problems that evidence was not included why is that might the testimony from the prior hearing not included well it just doesn't make any sense there's no reason that that evidence couldn't be here shouldn't have been included and bail jane might not have given it following the abilities is that correct you agree with that no i i don't agree with that if i didn't have those abilities then and i don't have them now all those questions were asked and that the actual real question here not does she feel any better now or worse now than she should feel worse now than she did at the time of the previous algy's decision but is she worse than the l g found her to be that question was that's the question we have here that's why it's not a foregone conclusion that a proper adjudication here would result in a different decision and that's the other thing is  the the opinions of the people who were treating her and those opinions do not describe somebody who is able to work  legal standards throughout the decision all she is asking for is a fair hearing before an impartial judge thank you you i have no more questions thank you thank you then it's a matter will be submitted