security steps three of the five steps the question of valuation process provides a short cut for claimants with extreme conditions well no claim is ever denied at step three a claimant whose condition i had not been satisfied l j provided an example of a medical record which demonstrated that medical records showed that normal functioning misters hour had normal functioning including normal muscle mass strength and  intact reflexes though there were some other observations of obesity and tennis elbow those normal findings however were inconsistent with listing one dollar which require motor loss accompanied by sensory or loss the l j explained how he reached his conclusion that mr sour had not met the criteria but that was not the only evidence that the l j discussed that demonstrated that mr zellweger did not satisfy the requirements of listing one court concluded the l g s explanation of his step three conclusion and page four of his decision was insufficient and that the l g s discussion of additional evidence later in his decision could not be considered but this court recently rejected that very same argument in just a versus just ski raised the same argument as mr souter and invoked the doctrine which the district court also raised you rejected the argument and that discussion may doubly explain how the evidence shows the claimant's impairment is not present at least disabling under the current listing and as we've already recognize to require the a l j to repeat such a discussion throughout the decision explained therefore we asked the court to reverse the district court's decision and affirm the decision here note of one of his family doctor visits to justify that decision but the listing wasn't sad as the ala jay did not do several things required by the case law leading back from the you still need another discussion of that discussion of the criteria within the listing to explain why or why not those listing criteria are either match or not match and i don't think this case reaches to that get to this point where we take those that discussion and we translate that to how that evidence bits into any of the criteria whether they're mad or it and i think the diabetes listing discussion is a good example because the least there when the judge made the non listing finding as to the diabetes he specifically cited one of the particulars of the listing be the no evidence of disorganization of motor function and said you know death criteria wasn't met even if you take the artsy discussion before stuff or and you take all that language in those subsequent pages past step three you can never really relate that back and figure out how those criteria are either magic or not under one four you know just as indicated the just the way the decision was written have this double explanation that yeah you don't need to go through the redundancy of repeating all the evidence but you still have to tie it back into how it meets the criteria listed or doesn't need to crit so there were prior cases i think in a similar tone the the expression necessary detail was used so cases where maybe the listing wasn't discussed that much but the later discussions  made his decision before just the district court anticipated his argument and said well look can we read the rest of the decision as a whole can figure out why this list of criteria was met or not met and it said  know we can't do that you know none of the criteria are discussed in the r c determination and we're simply left to kind of wonder and speculate which of those criteria were either or not   wasn't enough discussion in the decision there wasn't enough review of the evidence in light of the criteria of the us as argued in my brief you know standards for and the r c might be senate harry and he's found not disabled so you can have different evidence which leads to different conclusions and that's why it's an important to take this evidence even in the r c discussion and tie it in with how it is the address the listing criteria underneath the residual functional capacity discussion so here councils and he was correct but the district court found that because period only about a month the l j just passed all of the evidence from shortly before and through the relevant period and specifically identified evidence that was relevant to his but the l j discussed and every other relevant findings which demonstrated that the conditions the criteria of the listing could not be met so that included the motor examinations that included just cited some of that evidence in his discussion under the heading announcing his listing conclusion but then he discussed additional evidence later in the decision so the logical bridge is the l g s discussion identification of the relevant in this case there is no conflicting evidence that could have satisfied the listing that the l j did not address the district court identified some evidence but that evidence is not sufficient to satisfy the listing it's the court and mr relied on subjective statements from mr zellweger whereas the listing specifically require that the physical creates be met by objective evidence identified by a medical examiner examination and so that is why the court some of the court's previous precedent including many do not control in this case just does control the court there you did not require that there would be a specific expressed statement of evidence tying it directly back to the listing you read the decision with common sense and as a whole and  that decision as in this decision that the evidence supported the l g s conclusion we would ask that you do the same here and find that the l a l j is substantial discussion of the evidence throughout his decision