s didn't reach because we terminated analysis at step two was the type of occupation that requires frequent if not constant use of the hand she was a cashier she was a house cleaner she was also work or any other work for thirteen or fourteen months and i got better in november of ninety five then dr anderson's question and i answered the question what was there after january first i can only six would be correct nothing but  parents relating to her neck and back problems she states at the bottom of the next page the carpal tunnel would explain the decrease in station and would explain the problems with her wrists and hands council i guess my problem is i know a lot of people with carpal tunnel much the hearing is over he didn't ask why why should i assume that this person suffers from an occasional or frequent inability to use their hands because of carpal tunnel syndrome or any other type of that a question and then say can they do the pastoral and work are there any other jobs five she said well i know she said all of her disabling impairments that's not the same thing is saying all of her problems i've got lots of problems ok but they're not necessarily well depending on who you talk to not necessarily  don't stop to cases i know are very difficult to defend and the court has looked at them and given them sort of the demand in the standard however i prefer they've also been referred to as the gate keeping statute and that's how i prefer to look at this because i feel that gatekeeping statute you don't sit on the fence you get there through the gate or you're on the other side of the game and the way you get through is by proving your the evidence and here i don't believe that the l j or the plaintiff approximately the end of october of ninety six so in terms of looking at the medical reports is it in terms of looking at the treatment and nothing let's talk about this line of testimony that in september and in august rather ninety four claimants said the problem with their hands was they go numb while sleeping that's it there's no other complaint from her about limitations and in fact in her initial application there's no mention of problems with her hands or wrists in her redetermination application there is no mention of her hands or rests in her request for hearing there's no mention of problems with her hands and wris where we get her problems with her hands and wrists is you know in the testimony at the hearing and i do believe that that is what the and he was talking about that those particular next february ninety two or thirty three ninety nine she said she was twenty one years of back problems she had a flare up she goes to the doctor doctor tells her bulging disc no follow up treatment no follow up treatment prior to the last insurance no continual problems from january of ninety six through october of ninety six again there's the first time we really hear of the follow up on her back is report from late over i think it was october twenty sixth of ninety six about a week or so after that car accident she applied for benefits when her application was ninety seven then we look at the duration again she may have had some problems with her her hands maybe were going numb when she was sleeping she may have had a flare up of her back pain but there is no duration to show that this impairment lasted  after her date last insured and there is that requirement of some continued continuous so again i don't feel any is testimony was inconsistent i believe that he was referring to the presence limitations disability benefits are for people who are severely disabled and i don't believe that plaintiff has carried her burden of proof through step two and it is her burden to carry it is a gatekeeping statute and i think we need to hold that what would it be strongest