eyes that preceded the decision our nd argument is that the l d s decision is not based on some say substantial evidence as there was no suitable medical opinion to support the elders function by function r c finding in fact separate interpretation of what the reality is provided right well i would say st off we're looking at a question of expertise and the l j is all a person when it comes to evaluating medical evidence yes they always have extensive experience in looking at council even if the agency was incorrect in interpreting that information that is applying to the relevant time period even if we find that that was a mistake don't you really still have to show that as a consequence if it were properly considered for the relevant time period that the conclusions would still have been contrary to the weight of the evidence i mean don't you really still have to show person can do certain specific jobs and so we need to know since the subject limitations to how those limits nuisance can be applied in the workforce and if those limitations are different than the jobs at the l g aber going to be different so so went on i'm just looking at this record i'm trying to maybe unpack it just for me at fifty three of the appellate record deals record says further the onus on consider the new or medical evidence t that she needs further surgery that simply doesn't make sense but i would say it's a question of the degree of that it's very rationed evidence that was available at the time of the l j decision to show that there was that very ration here yes they please the court i represent the commissioner of social security your honour's the algis decision here is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed ramsey st argues that the additional evidence from what's more none of the additional evidence meaningfully spoke to ramsay's functioning during or related any functional limitations back to the period issue the evidence submitted demonstrates a worsening of ramsay's back condition following the correct and you're saying they don't relate back right correct i thought and correct me i may be reading this wrong that the report contains an analysis of the april two thousand and sixteen m r i is that correct correct i falls within the period of previous period of time that is subject to discussion here right correct your honor i'll make two points about that st some this is not the situation where dr lewis was a long time treating physician who submits an opinion that post dates the decision that says these are her limitations as of the april th teen and furthermore those limitations ha been in effect since i st saw her and you know whatever it is two thousand dr lewis says none of that to the contrary at that two thousand and seventeen visit he says  that ramsey had a quote recent fall which aggravated her pain severely that's page eleven a ministry of records he also notes a january two thousand and seventeen c t scan which shows a new spinal condition that was not ever imaged during the relevant period pseudo arthro since it's called he then also does see that two thousand and sixteen spinal m r i that was already in the record which so  we don't dispute that he saw evidence that was within the relevant period but then he says he doesn't say her condition has always been this bad and therefore she cannot lift five pounds or sit for more than two hours and that that has been the case since two thousand and fourteen he says her condition has gotten worse it's he chalks it up to a recent injury but what is it what does it mean to the to to say that it's not re about that period correct but he at no point says that during the relevant period she was limited in any way more that exceeds the r f c finding he does not say that i've reviewed this tw art let's call it an administrator's of shorthand or when a doctor will specifically tie at an opinion back to an earlier time period and one where would i be able to find this definition this term of art in the regulation or in anything you're out of the the appeals council's regulations on what they're supposed to do what they have to consider they don't specifically define that that it most certainly does not because as your honour's pointed out before they acknowledge is that her back condition did not magically improve with the surgery and in fact she no and sixteen m r i as well as evidence of worst thing that of that condition and already incorporated that into the r c so this is your is your argument that we should i'm just going back to this relevant time period because one way of looking at the head is that it does relate and so there was an error committed by the appeals council but you telling me that it's got some special administrative residen council did consider that evidence and correctly determined that it did not meaningfully comment on the relevant period he doesn't dr lewis is not say that any of these limitations were present during the limited during his st of all he doesn't say she is incapable of the less than sedentary r c even after the other requirement meaningfully comment on come from this this is just an analysis of how council did not in fact relate to the condition and i understand we can debate what that means you seem to have a different understanding or yours starting a particular understanding of what really means but it's a separate question i would take it that even if one agrees with the petitioner here that it does relate back because it talks about say the m r i from april two thousand and sixteen and the appeals council was wrong to say that it didn't relate back it didn't really even if one considered it it wouldn't would not have changed the record in any material way in favor of the petitioner it is that's sort of your contrary to the evidence argument is that what i understand her or tell me if i'm getting it wrong no that's exactly right your honor we the appeals got we would argue st that the appeals council correctly decided st that this evidence which shows a recent fall which severely aggravated her pain therefore separates that seven month later treatment note from the relevant period and shows a distinct worsening in time therefore that we would argue the appeals council correctly determined that that that note doesn't relate to the relevant period and even if even if you find your honor that that in fact they the appeals council should have used a different language that it did relate but also did not outweigh the the decision that's a separate and distinct finding and given that dr lewis specifically says that this that this  that this refers to a recent fall aggravating her condition and the addition of the january computerized tomography scan which shows a wholly different condition than had been  but if occurs that in roughly the same time so whatever limitations were caused by that spinal condition and i'm not a medical expert on the i can't read the m r i and say exactly what that means whatever so you're asking us are you telling us that is so clear on this record that the appeals council would find that there was no reasonable probability that the treatment would change the outcome that we don't need to be me back but i think that we've suggested that really the better more prudent course is to let the appeals council figure it out i'm no expert i don't know what your honor i would again point you to the appeals c decision at page two of the record they did consider these records and they set forth a rationale and i would i'm also happy to point out your honor and if you are in the christers brief we talked about whether there is a specific need from the act or regulations and for a greater level of detail from the appeals council and i'll rest on the commissioner's brief on that point because of our because my time is up however the appeals council's regulations do not call for any specific detailed analysis it near if the court has analogize it to a denial of service this is not something where that requires a lengthy  for your yes yes council gave us reasoning in rejecting that opinion and stated that the reasoning that it felt it was not relevant was because of the dates of the examinations it said nothing about the relevance of the of the past imaging that was studied the court is not the government is not allowed to reinvent reasoning that was not given by the lower level terminations the appeals council said that it rejected this evidence because it was because it occurred after the fact  the peals council didn't address whether the evidence related to the period because it didn't address how it how those m r eyes were interpreted therefore i think that my opponent has made my argument for me as to why remount is necessary because we really don't know that the evidence was properly considered now i mean back to my nd argument again we have that the decision is not based on substantial evidence the this there was no opinion th i ask you a question going back to the us we call the nd argument that was being framed with opposing counsel this idea of our scope of review at least with respect to the argument that even if we conclude that the appeals counsel was wrong in stating that this didn't dr lewis whose opinion didn't relate back to the state of play in two thousand question is this didn't the district court of fact did lee make that sort of let's call it a harmlessness analysis and if so but by basically concluding as i read page ten of the district court's opinion saying it was cumulative and  that's my characterization of it that it didn't really wouldn't really change much it says basically the ale jay incorporated dr lewis's findings and that this new evidence  about c was considered that's negating the necessity for further review by the appeals council and my question is this if if the district court effectively did w the evidence did you argue in your blue brief that that was error because we're reviewing the district court's decision directly so my question is did you cruiser that argument for appeal and challenge what i read the district court as having done or i mean maybe you disagree with the characterization of the district court so maybe you could explain to me that you think number one do you think that's what the district court did is engage in the weighing of the evidence and number two if you do think that that's what the district where did point me to where in your blue brief you challenge that we did not challenge that i don't believe that the district court wait that evidence  the where there should have been a fusion where there should have been bone growth between the two that this your bones there was not right and that was determined that was not discussed by any other doctor because no other doctor besides dr lewis reviewed that and the district court also did not review that we had discussed that in our in our outreach to the district court but it was