the island jacqueline strike the strikes case has become a lot more uncomplicated recently because of this the supreme court's decision last week and caro carvey saw this court cannot  affirm the decision of the district court as the commissioner conceded in the twenty eight j a letter that was found yesterday the sole emailing issue in this appeal is the remedy whether to reverse and award benefits t that the court hold that the opinion of a not treating not examining physician with a medical specialty that differs widely from the claimants injur can never constitute evidence to outweigh the opinion of the treating physician when i receive a question about dr waits his doctor waits didn't say that she was he's been disabled for nine years right didn't say when she became disabled twelve stache two p i believe when an individual becomes disabled as a result of a traumatic incident such as an injury as miss strike the date that could benefit some for some clarification well you're on of the the evidence as is all in an instant of the sport there is no additional medical evidence that could be there is some me ask you to focus on dr darling because i mean the doctor waits last examines your client in every or march of two thousand and sixteen in may of two thousand and seventeen dr darling news reporting a fifty percent improvement as a result of the treatment that she's been providing so it does seem to talk to weights is a check box analysis is is well before dr darling is engaging  the other the other treatment providers and there's no indication here is there that doctor waits supervised darwin or doll they're not supervised no you're under but as these are all specialists they are all recognized in their fields it's expected that they will talk to each other and that they are familiar with each other's treatment certainly dr waits was reading all of the his colleagues treatment notes and and they were all reading the the medical records and the test results that were performed on the strike they need none of these doctors were operating in  that's the advantage of having a practice where you have medical specialists with slightly different medical specialties they can all treat the same patient and it benefits the patient ultimately that these different doctors with the same medical practice will consult and the they will come up with the best diagnosis and best possible treatment plan for the patient to send it back to the l j that that that would be correct your no matter what the sport determines that the court will instruct the district court in ther part of the problem with that maybe is that this report got to the merits and rejected the requests for an award of benefits so i'm not sure that understand how it would in this case  also a decision in the case of flynn in two thousand and eighteen green younger and a number of cases where the district court having considered the merits of the case and decided that the individual was not disabled or that the social security administration was right in denying benefits this court the nd circuit has reversed and has issued a decision awarding that is that the court could certainly  well our position is that it seems counter intuitive to pro j's decision from two thousand and seventeen when we've all agreed that the kid has to go back for a new decision if appellate wants to discuss whether she is entitled to every man for a calculation of benefits we're looking at whether the record provides persuasive proof of disability but that we met for further proceedings with serve no purpose and here the commissioners position is that the record does not provide such persuasive proof of disability because there is so much conflicting evidence in the record as we just discussed and as we noted there are hundreds of pages of treatment notes from both d and from his colleagues as well as from other pain management specialist in the record and these treatment notes they show some restricted range of motion and tenderness and strength that but they also show that she generally walked with a normal have such conflicting evidence in the record and we didn't delve into it but there are also two opinions from two state agency medical consultants dr joye and dr virginia richner and they reviewed the evidence in the record  know all of the treatment notes that we just discussed and they concluded based on the treatment notes the radiological studies appellants own statements about her activities that appellant with able to perform late work with additional postur limitations so given that there is so much conflicting evidence in the record we believe that this case has to go back further administrative proceedings because it's only appropriate for the a o j to resolve these conflicts in the evidence writer you said we should send it back to a different way l j i was just curious and how does that work is that automatic in other words if we didn't put in that language in order to potentially assuming obviously be a d agency is still formulating its policy since the car decision however in this particular case given the decision in cart his would go back to the new way ok is there any issue crossed my mind that  applauding when it is a car situation stacey didn't involve a problem with the appointment of the jail and so if that's the problem do we not even get to use that stand well be that standard that's from the park or the harris case and i agree that was not in the situation involving a car that the language there was looking at the record here if appellant want to argue that the record contain such persuasive evidence of disability however we feel that's a very very high standard and because there is conflicting evidence in this record it still needs to go back to an a l j for further proceeding the other side says we beam him back really to let the district court determine everything in light of carr and so if it wants to change its mind presumably and award benefits he could do got to go back and do those over because of the darkness and i say no other budget activity is you but going forward what do we do and do saying it's got to go everything is spending it's got to go back think that the commissioner has effectively conceded that in some appeals the court can has the power to reverse and award benefits and here the commissioner keeps talking about him splitting medical evidence but the only conflict is the opinions of not examining not treating pediatricians that nist strikes back problems are not sufficient to render her disabled cannot do the repetitive motion that is involved in operating flight controls social security administration says ah this is a consulate but dr waits it was no conflict and two people who think about operating f so if the if you take the opinions of the pediatrician out of the mix then the only opinion that is left is the opinion of the treating physician dr w the only opinion existing is that of dr waits then the court must reverse and award benefits and what we're asking is that the court take one step further and say the opinion of these two give your traditions who never saw or examined new strike and whose specialty is so far away from that her illness her degenerative disc disease those cannot constitute evidence that outweighs the treating physicians opinion and when we have all of the treating physicians opinion and it's based on years of treatment and examination and of course in this case the treating physician cut open her back and saw what was wrong with strike and tried to fix it and was not successful in such a case there is no longer any issue to be resolved and the case should be reversed