abnormalities she has knee back hip degenerative conditions she had multiple surgeries from the period between two thousand and thirteen to two thousand  baskin did not adopt her findings she found moderate limitations and maintaining attention and concentration maintaining a regular schedule and properly dealing with stress and  were they found her temper temporarily impaired but cumulative cumulatively that was from two thousand and twelve to two thousand and fifteen this considered given more weight or considered in a different way yes i believe the gave them some weight as far as they were temporary and so i don't know percentage wise you know how to equate that in terms that it's compatible with light work but ultimately light work requires lifting twenty pounds walking in standing for six hours out of an eight hour day and there there is a lack of support for that r f c her testimony doesn't support it even if she's walking for therapy based on her mental and physical condition and she has side effects from the medicine she has to take in order to walk she has to then elevate her legs the rest of the room for a good portion of the day after that and i thought that again therapy  standing there is that's another requirement so is your argument mainly on what her physicians which in light of a always in v's cases we have a physician who is saying something else we do it out of a mental things here which we don't have and that's a physician saying what you could do and what you could not do invent that's one thing that is unusual about this case be interested in a little bit more discussion ok so so dr land violent were i believe me only two treating opinions that provided some sort of functional off eisman what they had found that she should avoid a number of activities which is a very extreme thing so they don't want her to do any sitting standing walking or lifting nothing that goes to the opposite of that right you have workman's comp percentage opinions but there is no opinion that says ok she can lift very enough or does a v a l j need a physician assessment as well that's like yeah yeah i think that there is an average enter gap where the the the  administrative law judge would need to rely on some functional capacity and opinion medical opinion which he did not for the physical findings thousand and fifteen she would be fifty three years old that's closely approaching advanced age and if she was found to be sudden terri which was her last job and unskilled work she would the grid rules would apply and she would be found disabled and she has a long work history and she had accommodations to the point where the medical secretary work was the last position that she had and she was still having problems yeah that was yeah a while ago and then her last position was a medical secretary but and and she was having physical problems at that time as well and the other what else is harmful is that the vocational expert found that if she was off task fifteen percent of the obligation to fill in the gap we have cases that say that to make the record complete on which to decide can you repeat that please are you arguing that the a l j had an obligation to fill in this gap in the record we have cases that say that that it ca o'jays responsibility if there is a gap in the record to fill that gap yes that's part of the argument pattern where the doctors found very extreme avoidance activities and the the court said well you can't just you can't have you know you have to find out what functionally she can do oh there's one other thing i forgot i'm sorry i didn't completely forgot so the other piece of this and this is this is actually a harder piece because this is new material evidence  capacity evaluation but it was done by you know an occupational therapist or someone who's not a doctor so and that capacity evaluation  the decision and it doesn't it doesn't purport to be an evaluation of your client's past conditions what am i missing can is there something new in it that relates changed her condition that was related to her conditions she does have degenerative conditions but it i she improved but you know there was no functional indication of how she improved and and d m r i's and the functional capacity suggests that her conditions were  that if there is substantial evidence in the record there is no need to supplement it with an additional medical opinion the r f c properly determine the r c and that plane of can perform light work with certain month after they own she's decision of the month after a plaintiff's left knee surgery plaintiff was doing remarkably well according to a doctor i want to she indicated that she was very pleased with the surgery she even excuse me indicated that she was walking for three miles by the river every day for exercise they also partly consider their daily activities as counsel noted plaintiff was walking for three miles every day and continued to do so throughout the relevant period she did so and november her own independent room proving independently she was able to do chores is taken care of i can see all that my question is do we require this by do everything traversed by her description of her behavior and so on you know i have no problem in this case if we were so medical testimony justified and that may be ok but it's a very unusual thing for us to do does your honor and tell them fetus true the circuit decided that the medical findings and selves can constitute substantial evidence and the medical findings throughout the record show that plaintiff after her surgeries i recovered successfully she had full range of motion or say that we properly properly relied on her medical activities her her her own testimony that she was walking three miles per day and the medical findings that showed largely normal x rays and her left knee and her lumbar spine that she was walking with normal gait that she had full muscle strength and full range of motion and her upper and lower extremities and that in her left knee she eventually had no motor weakness or tenderness and normal motor tone and strength so this court has previously held that that opinion was also contingent on plaintive completing a successful back surgery and he also pined the plaintiff could return to her prior work his treatment no it's just after the surgery indicated that she had fifty to sixty percent improvement in back pain that she was doing while that she had a normal gait and that just she decreased to her pain medications by fifty percent and sixty seven percent respectively plaintiff even indicated that she wanted to return to walking six miles per day  also considered her own testimony for a moment it looked like the explicitly consider the burgess factors when when assigning little weight to that two thousand and thirteen opinion and i and how should we think about that i realize one thing about doctrinally in these opinions is they change over time so thirteen she should be avoiding all work but then she receives treatment and and later he's hazari twenty five percent disability and says you don't need to keep coming back you can come back as needed so they change over time so help me understand whether somewhat summary treatment of that two thousand and thirteen opinion specialist and the consistency and support ability factors that the court should provide good reasons for the weight given to the treating source opinion so that a search interview with a record what assure the court that the substance of the treating physician rule was not reversed however and thirteen opinion just before he issued his own that showed that she had good muscular strength in her lower extremities he also discussed the surgery and dr landis opinions after after the surgery mentioned adverse side effects plans of also mention the workers compensation temporary disability ratings however this court has previously held that that workers compensation uses a different standard than the social security act and for that reason those opinions were afforded little weight  before the district court in fact as previously mentioned pointed to show that she was capable of performing light work plaintive also mentions a new and material evidence that was submitted before the appeals coun however the appeals council was correct in determining that the evidence would not have changed their decision plaintiffs that have an additional intervention in march of two thousand and fifteen to correct a stress fracture however the evidence that was submitted to the appeals council that was dated both during the relevant period and after the relevant period showed a progression and improvement in plaintiff's condition so would not change the decision for instance an april th teen planes of resumes five out of five strength and hope quadriceps and hamstrings by april th two thousand may th two thousand and fifteen just a week after the l g s decision she had improvement in range of motion and her left need to one hundred and twenty dollars degrees almost a full and stable need such thing these findings were almost exactly the same as her findings joining the relevant period when she was walking for