this case one is concerning whether or not there's good could perform her past work as a preschool teacher one of the second is whether they'll get properly considered the opinion of the subsequent treating physician and the last is whether the l g a properly consider boots testimony yourself the first issue i think warranty remained for further proceedings the a l j stated in her findings of residual functional capacity that ms bhutto had not engaged in any reaching or any discouraged preschool teachers from lifting children discouraging is different than prohibiting with respect to the reaching issue she said that you can reach with your arm and that reaching is very rare but that doesn't mean that that working a reaching never happens with the non dominant arm and the limitation is a is no work above shoulder level with an arm that again  expert conceded that there is some and some is more than others and and so discouraging is and it's discouraging is different than l j as best reason is that it's inconsistent with the opinions of the two consultation examiners and dr deanie that reflected treatment and her condition at a prior point in time and so when we can look at these doctors opinions that are separated both in terms of their of objective findings because dr plugs in found spasm and decreased motion in other abnormalities with respect to his boots condition  it's separated objectively by the the differences in findings but also by the the lapse of time and the idea that an individual's medical condition that the later opinion is inconsistent with his prior findings but not inconsistent with dr pleasants doesn't put them together in the same box and look at them and the record as a whole as reflecting twenty thirteen and inconsistent with prior findings that's not just as early and consistency in the sense of the doctor's making a mistake if the doctor seeing her at different times well if her condition underlying condition is changed exactly exactly or which is why we encourage people to continue to back to the doctor because things do change they get better they get worse in light of those medical findings that she did get worse and the inference that she did get worse boots testimony just dissolve there isn't a substantial beason for rejecting her testimony that she isn't able to engage in significant walking and standing that the relief from the knee surgery turned out says the functional assessment that she can occasionally lift her carry one hundred pounds is there anything else on the record i just know my boxing gym we have these big bags on the floor heavy bags and there's like a sixteen and eight there's like one hundred like to pick up the hundred that's pretty hard and so i was surprised to see that the doctor had said she could occasionally do this i don't mean to belittle her physical strength but is there anything else in the record of the reason i ask is not to just be funny is that if there's a doctor's statement that seems so off can we can we as a court review and it can we just discount it much like we state it with a patient as only odd or doctor is there i think the records that supports this hundred pound assessment by doctor and requests i think that the court can disregard it for all purposes because the a l j disregarded it by making findings of medically determinable severe impairments that are wholly inconsistent back in but picking up the eighty pound dumbbell as i actually broke the the rocks they threw me out i'll reserve my remaining two minutes and twenty second out another form and says this is her since which is consistent with the earlier what you don't have to take it and the information about what was truly made but the fact that it was consistent with the earlier one has no relevance what your honor the  was just earlier that's the over all of it was i mean the problem is that the most contemporary statements by going the bible out by palosi which with a few less ones i think were completely consistent often relies on one time examinations to support it's not a disability findings was consulted examinations but our position is that not all one time examinations are created equally all my hand you have consulted examinations which are j examine the record that was before her that did not include dr places opinion and that all that evidence after considering that the terminal to miller the clinic could perform her past relevant work as a preschool teacher and so again the evidence considered and then based on the findings reasonably turman they claim it could perform a range of light work and then was able to thus return to her pastoral and work as a preschool teacher now again there might be an alternative interpretation of all of this evidence and that's articles function those are typically associated with with a disabling physical condition and none of those findings were present in this instance and so based on that divergence the old a reasonably determined that claim its claims were not persuasive and i think it's also interesting that the usa specifically asked the claimant at the hearing about certain consistency tweet her claims in the medical evidence on page seventy one for example the  now actually if we don't believe it is your honor because it's important that the claim it first apply for disability because in two thousand and ten when she was working full time as a preschool teacher claim it then applies in two thousand and eleven to claim that's the issue here but it's her she was working full time that she only occasionally i think saw we met with people and had no hobbies and pastimes in other words even when she was working he was mine before and what you're saying no you are i don't see she was lying before i think that the point that i think the l z was undercuts her overall claims of disability and i think there is also a very example of that at the hearing as well where the l g asked you know about her activity and noted that her basically her weight had had rain in maine largely the same even when she you clarify something mr moti said about the record of the ale jay said the record is confusing about whether it's the right shoulder or the less holder and his boot was just very clear and very adamant it's just the right shoulder she was not cornered into it she just said it choose the right shoulder and to state that the there's no objective support for her complaints of pain and dysfunctions nor the the really detailed findings