portion of its ruling which a pelvis terminations of social security benefits to him for the period beginning april two thousand and three after having ruled that he was entitle to benefits all the way up through march of two thousand and three the commissioner has implicitly conceded as much by offering that the social security administration would give jed a new administrative hearing on his in title meant to benefits hearing on his in title meant to benefits from april going forward that is on pages ring hasn't occurred they have not offered him that here i know they put in their papers that they would give them a hearing they have not offered or  done anything to follow up but it is our position that no such hearing is necessary because  effectively the commissioner has conceded that the district court erred in determining that a judge should not get benefits after april of two thousand and three i didn't understand the judge to have so ruled i  address that was an error by the judge but i didn't think that the judge made some affirmative ruling that going forward after march of two thousand and three the agency was correct in was overpaid benefits up through march two thousand and three was not the sole issue before the district court at every stage of the administrative proceedings jad had argued that he remained disabled and he he remained eligible for benefits and at every stage of the administrative proceedings three hearings three trips to the appeals council the social security administration said no your disability ceased in two thousand and two so the and when chad filed his complaint in the federal district court he again said that social security was wrong in saying my disability ceased  also to conclude that that decision decision was implicit first the district judge ruled that there was no evidence in the record showing that jed needed a job coach after march of two thousand and three which is factually incorrect there are three or four detailed reports from the job coach subsequent to april two thousand and three say stating that jed could not work without the  same thing that she had said in her report of march two thousand and three and secondly the government made a motion for reconsideration which was denied and is that denial is not before this court but that the motion set as i interpret it well judge if you say jed was disabled and unable to work from up through march of two thousand and three doesn't that mean you have to remain and on the issue of whether his disability continued after april of two thousand and three and the judge said the motion is denied so  think maybe too much reading of tea leaves but i guess what puzzles me is just what the procedure appropriately is and how this worked in the agency and it's complicated by the fact that it took fifteen to twenty years to get through the ministry of proceedings in this case which incidentally makes me somewhat concerned about sending it back for more hearings to the agency where they can start over again about april two thousand and three in two thousand eighteen and maybe by two thousand and thirty three they'll have figured out whether he was disabled in april of two thousand and three but what exactly is supposed to happen they this is not a case where anybody contends am i to an excessive degree that he had substantial gainful activity and the agency says we got two thousand and three you're doing substantial gainful activity no more a no more benefits and b we're actually going to take back money from you for what we paid retrospectively in two thousand and whatever it was one and two know it takes many years apparently to figure that one out and decide that the agency was wrong i take it your position is well now we're back to status quo ante he was found to be disabled correctly no one disputes that they took the benefits away because of a particular fact finding which has now been reversed so there is no reason why he should not have been receiving benefits all along from two thousand and three to the present and indeed today going forward until and unless they bring a new proceeding and try to take away his his benefits again is that basically what your position is yes that is basically our position  that the issue is what is the remedy for going forward why didn't you just follow an application for benefits at least two years ago after the district court's decision what's what's wrong why you want to just say why don't we have belt and suspenders here let's file a new application with so security administration we could not have done that and this is not in the record at all your honor but in order to get disabled adult child's benefits that is benefits as the disabled child of a retired wage earner that's is receiving benefits you must show that you have been disabled continuously since prior to your twenty second birthday so having lost  benefits the way the way jed and i read the district court decision she went further in saying there was no evidence showing that he needed a job coach there after which i've explained we disagreed with but having lost on that issue because of the procedural problem that he would have had to show that he was continuously disabled up through from before his twenty second birthday until the day of his application to the act to the extent that the district court's ruling was that he was properly denied benefits after april two thousand and three you could not go back and start over again because there's now a ruling that for the two thousand and april two thousand and three period and going forward he is not eligible is that what you're saying yes your honor that you said it much better than i could and therefore chad's remedy appeal the appeal to this court which is what he did and and then ask this court to say under section four or five g of the social security reach the period after that because it's not before me not that he's not entitled to any future benefits well your honor if then if the court actually hadn't reached that decision then perhaps one remedy might be to we man the district court and say you made a mistake in not reaching the decision because the issue really was before you but there was a sentence in the district court opinion where the district courts in my recollection of the district i'm not going to make a decision on the period from april two thousand and three because it's not before me properly before me now as of april two thousand and three he's not entitled to benefits we i believe it's the la not that it was not before her and if i would have to look in the but there was a purpose of categorical statement in the decision either the look initial decision itself or the denial of reconsideration that there was not evidence in the record that job she had depended upon a job coach after april of two thousand and three and with which we said is part of the issue is whether he's entitled to a job over or not and as of march of two thousand and three use coaching is result of benefits were permitted now it's a long time between march or april of two thousand and three and two thousand and fourteen and there could be significant changes in this child or this young person's life over that period of time fact is there's no evidence before the record is that exactly what his condition was in two thousand and six or two thousand and eight because essentially the court didn't even address that it wasn't even before the courts so how can you actually then ask for a ruling from this board back here isn't titled to these benefits when in fact there is no eviden support for that at this juncture well your honor and there is ample evidentiary support in the record for the period up through from up through april of two thousand and fourteen at least through the period of up through the administrative law judge decision in two thousand and twelve because judge parents produced letter after letter from the job coach explaining exactly what she was doing and how he could not do the job without her and under the commissioner's regulations if a person cannot do a job without significant assistance then that is not considered working so they have all that evidence the evidence was an contradicted in addition judd's mother injects father testified at three administrative hearings the degree to  coworkers assist him in the fact that he is working in a program at stony brook university which is a program to provide employment to the disabled and that  coworkers and the university expect that he will get a lot of help cannot even read people have to read for him and they help him by reading what he needs to do the job coach also wrote and again this is around two thousand eleven or two thousand and twelve that the goal of this earn program to provide jobs and dignity to the disabled is that ultimately with training and one on one supervision and being followed around by a  coach eventually the person will learn how to work independently and she says jed has not yet reached that stage so yes the record is not only contains that evidence but in fact it's un contradicted and therefore because this is a proceeding to terminate benefits we submit that the commissioner has the burden of proof the commissioner did not present any proof at all that jed was working independently and therefore under the regulation for a four point fifteen seventy three b he was not considered to be entitled to be engaging in as the government says substantial gainful activity but yes the record is very clear for the period up through two thousand and twelve now the question is what should happen after that after your time you have a few minutes  decision saying that if plaintiff hopes to receive disability benefits for the post march two thousand and three period he may submit a new application and may present whatever evidence he deems appropriate i'm puzzled by that i thought the state of play was that he was found eligible for benefits by the agency back in the last millennium or something and he was receiving those benefits right then there was an effort by the agency to cut him off because in a period which was and that's saying they were you were going back to ancient history it was we were in ancient history it was back then you said he's now got a job he's got substantial gainful activity his benefits should be terminated right and that happened in whatever two thousand and two two thousand and three in that past era yes that's right your honor and it's now been determined mysteriously taking whatever two thousand and sixteen when the judge issued her ruling that the agency was incorrect to cut him off at that point right payment because the agency was wrong in deciding that he should not have been receiving benefits yes well yes your honor however be the issue is ultimately up whether or not he is is  performing substantial gainful activity and the answer is he wasn't well your honor at that point that the pointed at us but that's the point that was litigated it's at that point that he was both held to have been being overpaid for a while and that he was not going to get paid any more in the future right well no only until march two thousand and three that was the from february two thousand to through march two thousand and three their lease or security ministration and initially determined there there was an overpayment the district court has you know ultimately said that that was incorrect why did he not get benefits in april two thousand and three because in april two thousand and three there's been no evidence in the record indicate why in april two thousand and three did he not get benefits because of that by that point your honor the social security ministration had determined that there had been an overpayment rightly until but suppose it was wrong you see what what the problem is if this had all been adjudicated in a hurry if in two thousand and three and april or may of two thousand and three we figured out that there was no overpayment what would have happened then would he have needed to file a new was a decision rendered that there was an overpayment that was the the the law of the land essentially until the district judge rendered her decision in twenty sixteen so what he should have done is every month there after he should have filed a new application no your honor the the determination that needed to be made is to show substantial gainful activity well you know whether or not he was performing substantial gainful activity for the period thereafter you would have to show that he was engaged in substantial gainful activity for those succeeding months in order for him yes in order for him to not receive benefits yes and when did you make that showing your honor ultimately he the plaintiff excuse me if i misspoke the plaintiff needs to show that he is not able to engage in substantial gainful activity the at that stage assuming that you folks had never made  this terminations decision or claim for back benefits or whatever it was that you made if that application that ruling had never happened would he not have continued to receive benefits month by month until and unless the agency thought that in that future month he was engaged in substantial gainful activity it would have depended on whether or not there had been a month to month determination comparing the pla earnings to his applicable to circumstances and comparing those to be applicable substantial gains electively levels that he would have gotten he wouldn't have had to file a new application would he no but he would have had to keep  showing his monthly earnings have to every month make a submission to the agency he well your honor i think in terms of the process how this works ultimately there need to be a verification of these monthly earnings in order for him to basis there would have been one monthly forms that he had to fill out your honor your ultimate lead yes there would need to have been some kind of evidence to show that he is you know whether or not he can perform substantial gain vittie and that's why this case the district court correctly held that there's the evidence that is devoid in the record of any of that monthly activity what do you think has to happen next at this point your said i'm done we're out here he wins about this effort to reclaim past benefits end of story don't bother me anymore you're asking us in effect to partially vacate the order to affirm that part of that said which isn't even appealed by you and then to send it back to the district court with instructions to remain and to the agency which is something the district court did not order right you know your honor and to clarify at that point in time when we filed our brief there was still an outstanding issue of fourteen thousand dollars that needed to be repaid to  since been repaid that's no longer an issue before this court the plaintiffs have conceded that's a moot point what do you think needs to be nothing at this point your honor and that's why i want to clarify that the remained was as we pointed out in our brief just to effectuate payment for this fourteen thousand dollars figure and now i'm back to my question what is supposed to happen next mr edelman believes has believed the way through his parents throughout this entire ordeal have always said the agency was wrong to take this action because he is disabled he always was disabled he has never engaged in substantial gainful activity because the money he's earned has always been in the context of this kind of program the very come the very thing that the court ruled was correct as of march of two thousand and three now are you telling me that mr adelman is now for ever put out at this point he can now file an application for that period after march two thousand and three and he's going to have to come up with documentation from fifteen years ago as to what exactly the job coach was doing for him in april of two thousand and three well your honor i think my understanding of the record is that he's worked at the same employer since two thousand and three they were ultimately need to be a competitor so that's why i'm wondering why this isn't over all through he has been contending and i don't see any evidence to the contrary that he has been in the same program receiving the same kinds of income the same kinds of treatment the same kind of assistance with performing his job and the position of the edelman's has been none of that has ever changed but your honor there's no evidence to that district court was very clear about the letters that were submitted by the job coach where they limited to two thousand and three or with your honor in the record there is one letter in the letter from a job coach that says that the point that the gentleman went twice a month in twenty eleven decades is it going to take if mr edelman and his family start submitting information about april two thousand and three now in two thousand and eighteen when it took approximately fifteen years to get us to this point for the agency to properly acknowledge or to be told by a district court that he was improperly terminated because he was not engaged in substantial activity through march of two thousand and three well any predictions on that iran are spectrally the district court noted that the delays at the administrative level were engendered by the need to develop the record each of the plaintiff's own request but having said  time they ruled against him and he went to the appeals council and they sent it back and then they ruled against him again and he went to the appeals council and they sent it back and then finally the appeals council gave up and affirmed the decision against him and he went to the district court and  reversed and that took fifteen years and what i'm trying to figure out is what are we supposed to be doing here where is the justice in a system that says well we're going to have to do a full investigation to decide whether his condition has changed when there's no evidence there's no suggestion nobody even imagines that his condition is change or that his program has changed he's been working in the same place for all these years as far as i can see but your honor we don't know what his adjusted earnings are and we have to compare those to the applicable s t a levels that information is just not there and ultimately the mental impairment is not dispositive here there's no dispute that he has a mental impairment why are we here so why didn't two years ago after you lost and you can see the counsel for both sides get together and say ok now we got to fix that other period after april two thousand and three want to jesus will we've got the application here we can work on it together maybe we will disagree we're not conceding gets in two thousand and four five or six but we really should start processing the last period were there any discussions like that yes your honor there were a we would out going into the issues and confidential can conference we had extensive ca we had multiple meetings with the mediator in it and it was something where we were we were moving very i think in a fruitful way but ultimately you know there was there was a disagreement and we're here and at this stage the is ultimately the district judge you know correctly said that there's not enough evidence for this post march a dozen three period particle ruling let's let's even assume that that's true i guess i would tend to expected to be true because the litigation in the agency focused lawyers occasionally or was was he pro se all the way through he did have a lawyers and various points and it was often one factor in process but you know i mean i'm sympathetic to the government too in a sense i mean i appreciate that if you're litigating because you think that he should have been cut off in two thousand and three no one expects at the outset of this process that it's going to take fifteen years to get a resolution of that determination and just as i don't know edelman's should have been expected to be constantly updating information about what's going on two thousand and three two thousand and four two thousand and six two thousand and twelve while they're still fighting this original determination  i understand the government also probably shouldn't be saying ok we're now going to take on a new burden of proof of years going forward but now that where you hear what i'm trying to figure out is why there can't be some kind of expedited process why we have to go back to an administrative law judge or a series of judges with no control by the courts over what's going to happen when we saw the last time it took fifteen years to get to the determination that the agency had aired why isn't there some ability to have some more informal process by which the agency can look at this case and determine with an expedited fashion whether there is really a ground of dispute about what happened during all those years or not why can't we go i think there will be your honor because here won't be a situation where you know they are starting right from the beginning we're after getting to show mental impairment and show different pieces of evidence ultimately what they need to show here is you know monthly earning statements you know evidence of work related expenses and things that are necessary in order for there to be a determination as to whether or not he performed the s g so i think complicated but i had had the impression no doubt erroneous review of the decisions below that all alone he was receiving more income at a level that would be substantial gainful activity if he was just working for arise and in stalling electric wires and that of the thing that made him win this case was that somehow all or just a part of that earning didn't count because it was in a supported environment yes your honor and that ultimately that the job coaches role with the district court found was such  that you know he there dinner should not have been an overpayment to be working this whole time in the same place is there's some amount of money he could have been earning if he gets raises every year or something that it no longer matters whether he needs the job coach well your honor i think it's with respect to the job coach it's something that you know there needs to be an assessment as to what was going on with the job coaching you know was it something where you know the job coach was actively involved and that's why there is that evidentiary piece to say it is something where the job coach is is merely supervising or is a job coach have to be very hands on during this period and that ultimately nowhere to be found in the record and you know what the administration needs to do is to evaluate whether the search for the value of the services provided by the job coach along with any income related work expenses incurred by the plaintiff you know whether that subtracted from the gross monthly earnings determines the countable earnings here in order to see if he's performing as well i understand though you've represented though maybe i'm wrong you will do your best expedite the next step with the agency is that here to actually file a complaint and then begin the process again so it sounds to me like you're on the same page as the three of us that is you want to move this along but  the first on what would have happened if if jed had gotten approved and then nothing happened and then there was no terminations and what would happen is because he was working and paying fica the social security administration would have a monthly one and does have a monthly record of his earnings so they know what he's making that is not something they have to go back and develop the record on furthermore by law the social security administration must do a continuing disability review every year of every person who is receiving benefits and that involves looking at not only earnings but at how the person does the job whether it's supported or subsidized employment what is the individual's disability if necessary and the social security administration also has that lengthy they have the information about his earnings even now because their furnishings from fica like but they do not information in their files from some sort of monthly review what's he actually doing at stonybrook in the nominees social security never does monthly reviews of any of its recipients they do an annual review and they happen to have the information because chad has had three administrative hearings and those a at all of those administrative hearings his parents have produced evidence as to the degree to which he is wrong he realized he needs the services of a job coach and the assistance of his co workers in the special program for the disabling the social security administration has had the option of doing exactly what the parents did calling up getting information and presenting at any of these three hearings contradictory information and they didn't and even now even today the social security administration argues that the dollar amount of his earnings is determined i will subtract a little bit how much the job coached charged but that's not what the regulations say the reg if i could read the regulation if you are unable to do ordinary or simple tasks satisfactorily  without more supervision and assistance than is usually given other people doing similar work this may show that you are not engaging in substantial gainful activity it doesn't say how much are you learning and what is the value how much is the job coach costing you which by the way the job does pay for judge charge for her services this is can the person work independently and if the person cannot work independently then the person is not engaging in substantial gainful activity and because jed was terminated because his benefits were terminated after he began receiving them the social security congress that said when they passed the disability benefits reform act if when the government is seeking to terminate disability benefits the burden is on the government not on the individual to show and so we would ask that the benefits be reinstated and that if the government wants to terminate his benefits now they can do so but they have to do it correctly thank you