more problematic problem which is that really nobody very well discuss this case in terms of the proper procedure for analyzing these threats whatever problem this may raise for this case being as far along without it really having been properly analyze those sections provide yet more language that could be construed as being ambiguous if one wants to try to do that or which can be looked at the source trying to resolve the supposedly ambiguity that yes but i don't want it always wanted to say that was ambiguous but never quite got a chance because the court in washington d c wouldn't let the other ones are current condition and that new evidence well i think i really didn't want to spend a lot of time talking about the ideas that this language exam to give us because i don't have anything to add really to the discussion i think it's to call  time the determination by the social security administration that benefits should be terminated because the client is no longer disabled and the time of the hearing in front of l j the question is whether or not evidence consideration whatever evidence is available at that time to determine the current condition and the only question i have and i think this answer pretty straightforward with this statute speaks to an l j decision not merely to a source code the administration decision that important fact there are two words any determination where what never has been actually litigated before that the u s attorney wanted to raise that in the washington d c case where precluded because it had never talked about it before present evidence about the way these things really happen except in step hey look what happened in this case nobody even thought of this idea until after the briefs have been filed and in the district court this is just the way we do things the way we do things decided in my why and not social security is way but i kind of arguing outside the record to be able to do so if the court wants to hear about i'm happy to talk about that substance first you could just deem every of every step station appeal to be an application second he could just forget about the whole idea that these are called of he'll call them applications if you don't like the fact to civility benefits are being seized instead of calling it an appeal that you're doing just say that you filed an application and then you can still a shouldn't and there also turns out to be a series of practical problems if there's a disability based on multiple problems and if one problem gets a little sort of weighted one probably gets a little worse well maybe there was time yes i think there are there are all kinds of practical problems some of which i have some problems discussing without going outside the record but i mean i raise one of them which is that  parallel procedural things that are going on it's really kind of silly fact what i said why don't we just stop calling them appeals and call them applications if we're going to exalt that particular language to the point where back to on the initial client you can't really tell exactly why a person was granted disability benefits and still another saying that that is outside the record is this isn't that isn't really that way what they do they have what's called comparison point determinations or decisions they don't look back all the way to the first time the person got found to have tabled they look back to the last time they looked back and the focus kind of narrows well i'm not familiar with any determination shall be made on the basis of all the evidence available on the individual's case including new evidence concerning the individual's prior current condition which is presented by the individual secured by the commissioner social her and yours saying that europe has that the agency's position is that current means as of the time of the cessation of terminations are you saying that determination when it sa any determination does not refer to an a r j determination e i think even if it refers to an analogy just vision the any determination that the social security interpretation is still permissible in terms of the prior current condition so from your standpoint you are right to hesitate to agree with me on any termination i think the commissioner's decision is that the social security interprets any determination as substation determination and that therefore any appeal on the station determination will be i guess i should explain it in terms of the way social security and mr kaplan reference to section four sixteen of the social security act and and all of the regulations a commissioner's interpretation could say that i find that your disability with respect to that ninety two disability finding continued and i disagree with really bad back and he only had a really bad back everything about him except for the bad back was great the station determination so you know what your back is better and so sensitive balances he said my back is not better and definition now i ask you with respect to this nice clean simple case is the a l j limited to saying the cessation determination was wrong he was disabled at the time of the cessation of some nation i can why don't you decide right now whether he's disabled i mean that's the time you're taking testimony from him but that's not working perfectly especially when you go about it and he's not in total about of them because he is no longer disabled why don't we cut them off right now the second i've cited it was and social security well that's true and and the second response would be that all of the regulations are set up of those clear that they're talking about review of the patient of the of the original disability because what we ha that when social security conducts a continuing disability review it will give the person notice that this is this is what we're doing we want to find out what's going on with you  an anti social personality disorder but also looking at what else is going on with you even though yes exactly overall and even if the back condition came up at that time and was disabling social security would continue th improvement as a basis for trying to nation the benefit as any time through the date of her his or her determination or decision i think that's the first answer you gave me the one that you can wager to regret current condition