issue directly presented here i want to make clear something that is not contested that everybody agrees upon and that is this that medical advisors are important resources available to help lay out a all js decided disability benefits social security administration has never understood its own rule as imposing that requirement under well established principles of administrative law the social security administration's interpretation of its own role is entitled to substantial that  interpretation so the interpretation is that it's that so the rules designed to address a very particular recurring scenario and that is relates to the inference of the onset of the deaths ability for medical  relevant portion of the role addresses that so i think what's most helpful is an example here you have a date of diagnosis of a clear disability such as parkinson's the and we understand that as the same age of twenty fifteen claimant definitely had parkinson's disease but we want to figure out the onset they were working backwards from twenty fifteen figure out well given that the condition of the claimant was such and such  to be clear about it does the rig do any independent work in the government's view yes or no i think they're conditioned there are circumstances where it might ok what and what would be one  what i think it helps do is clarify in her moved out that there is a particular recurrent class of cases and that those cases are when you're making retroactive inferences about the onset of a disability based on medical  it's phrased in sort of mandatory terms i agree and the court i'm sorry is it is as it appears to be written that that's where i part company with the language and so about the date of the city disability and the court is saying under the under the so secretly ministrations only policy in order to draw that inference which is based upon  prescription in january one nine hundred ninety eight she got an m r i the results were normal and then in of the fall of ninety eight she got an x ray the results were normal nothing further until two thousand and four now with the l j sad and this is subject to a substantial evidence challenge that saying is regardless of what is fisher's condition may or may not have been later on in two thousand and eleven for example or two thousand and thirteen as if the data here i don't need to determine one way or another whether she was your position is when there's a finding of disability presently the reg mandates then that in determining the state of the onset they have to consult the medical officials only if you're making an inf disability at the early onset period right i'm not making an inference regarding onset yeah i think that's right so is the government's position then that only if i find that there was early onset that i have to you have a finding of disability and you're making an inference based on medical evidence working backwards from that about somebodies condition yes the l j must consult but the a l j could solve that situation in other ways they could look at the data claim and stop working they could look at ways testimony for example from colleagues or neighbors who might be able to report on the person's condition and medical inference isn't the only way to resolve these cases but when you are three twenty two should at least be consulting with a medical advisor as this court recognized and so that's the sort of circumstance all claimants who are alleging an onset date that is far back in time and where the medical evidence is ambiguous or inadequate using the wording in s s r eighty three twenty prior to the date insured the reason and that is our position this would have such an effect is that it would really it would effectively preclude all claimants who are alleging an onset date far in the past or who don't have adequate or clear evidence of their disability during their insured period and i'm still how you dismiss them with the rate would require assuming that it requires something the rate would require the jade to get a medical consultant to look at the records that are there now yes so when produce any new records you just look at the evidence that's already in the record and help the o j interpret it that's correct your honor and the rulings specifically talks about these slowly enough to get you over the bar well in this record there is medical evidence that existed during her during the claimant's insured period that she had fallen off a ladder that she had siad that she was complaining of pain and that she and later on she went for an m r i the results were you know weren't anything weren't supportive of her but but the judge found that they did show that she was still having those complaints and then the record since then including up until two thousand and thirteen when we had the hearing on out of two thousand and thirteen she was still having she still had this diagnosis of psychotic but you've got to have some the medical thought up piece it will do something about that year before the last state of the insured that's correct and there are medical records that exist after the last insured that reference back this fall that she had and how she's been having this pain for a number of  these these two issues of this alleged onset date being so far in the past along with the fact that the medical evidence it was not inadequate during her insured period was not adequate excuse during her and short period of time and that it could be considered ambiguous and that is what the district court judge found that it the medical evidence that existed during the claimant's period and sure it was not on  disability the fact of evidence is unclear as to whether there's a disability how does that help you there were you have to prove that the and and say it actually shows that you've met your burden that there is a disability yes your are to an extent because the i believe that the a l j is tasked with making a decision a determination of present disability not just through the da that's insured because the a l j did not go forward go past the date last and sure it is our position that he inferred an onset date that he made a determination about an onset date or and that's under your interpretation of the not enough but you have to show that that evidence would be enough to get you over the line and i don't i'm not seeing how that evans that's before us could be so read your honor i believe that we have to look at the rule in conjunction with the claimants burden of proof because a rule exists and because of that some of the language in the rule is very specific and it doesn't and that's it doesn't apply in situations where you don't have th ambiguity and you don't have all of these other factors in that are laid out there will but for example one of the one of the things that eighty three twenty says is that the expiration of insured status is not itself a consideration in determining when disability first began so although the claimant does have the burden to prove that she is disabled i don't believe that when you have a situation where eighty three twenty comes into play she and her burden of proof is if she doesn't have the burden of proof to show when her onset date is if there is ambiguity or inadequate medical records she has a burden of proof to show that she has a disability but that's one of the reasons i believe the a l j should have made a determination is is that an argument about the substantial evidence about what the rig does to change the standard or bo yet apparent it was not severe but again if you look at eighty three twenty five look at the right it's simply says that it's not necessary for an impairment to have reached listing levels of a ready before onset can be put out your position sounds like you're saying all st two judgments are implicitly assuming argue endo that there was at step one a disability so we should just treat it as if there was a finding of disability if you just jump to step two you know you are only only in cases where there is not clear medical evidence some indication of grammatical evidence that what step to or with respect to the present disability clear medical evidence just it was for just them off evidence to create some ambiguity about about the onset date if substantial evidence had applied it seems that the court was saying that you know that there was judgement without involving a medical advisor to supplement the evidence that seems like an odd mechanical rule to apply and i'm not quite sure what purpose sir your honor i believe that the the rationale for that it was only be and i think that the judge lays it out pretty clearly but it's only because the a l j did not make a finding of present doesn't show that so when you have ambiguity or inadequate medical evidence involved and it cannot be clearly established when the disability began let me let me ask you one  a variety of not just when there's a traumatic or non traumatic injury there are other mental mental impairment and all of that that the that the rule sets out for that but there's different as for me i have one of them yes in the government's view if the a r j here on the exact same record had found present disability ok so the medical records regarding what happened all the way through exactly the same but had made a finding a present disability what is your position about how the rule would apply i think the rule wouldn't necessarily apply here to the extent that because what the l j was doing was not working backwards and making that kind of inference of onset date here at least the a l j believed that the contemporary it contemporaneous medical records working close now that's subject to substantial evidence challenging one of the things that might be pointed out to challenge that is the but later holding but i don't think if the a l j was just basing its decision or primarily basing its decision on their contemporaries and they were in the way you would propose that we decide suggesting to me that if they had made a finding of present disability but were less adamant or certain in the way they stated their conclusion or is it that the evidence was less obviously clear to whether the rule applies week in review we made a decision in light of the rule have to make a judgment about how strong the evidence is of no disability before these suppose onset date to determine whether the rule applies that would you like us to do in every case no that's not what i'd like to hear it would you like us to do what i'd like you to do is to continue the work that this is the course from the circuit been doing well for decades and enforcing the