conditions were worse than previously found by the l j and that her condition as of the m r i and january of two thousand and fifteen warranted surgery skiing provide evidence to support the analogies find well what i would say to that is those opinions were provided in two thousand and thirteen the and just for your purposes our purposes here are the date less insured for mrs henderson for title two purposes december th two thousand and fourteen l j could find disability any time between you know his his decision and june skis opinion he's a private doctor he says you can do light duty right there's no bending or stooping it was a treat treating treating orthopedic surgeon for her lumber on nor indicated that he considered light duty to be the equivalent of light duty in what we call what we term define and social security  so i would say that but besides that if you're looking at his two thousand and thirteen opinion he she should do no bending nowhere in the residual functional capacity is there doesn't reflect the record as a whole and her conditions worsened dr who may see this opinion and july of two thousand and fourteen i would think would constitute substantial evidence as well he was a treating doctor  and he had available to him other medical records he had an imaging i believe he would have had dr chua ski's notes he also would have had an  commission the commissioner of social security your honour's the commissioner's position is that the only proper issue before this court is involves the new evidence that was submitted one clarification i would like to make up with respect to this new evidence is appellant discusses this new evidence with respect to the appeals council this evidence was never presented to the appeals council discipline evidence was in fact presented to the district court the appeals council's decision is dated september i believe th two thousand and sixteen or september st two thousand and sixteen the st piece of new evidence was dated that same day the remaining evidence post dates the appeals council's decision so this this evidence was never before the agency that being said with respect to any r f c issues as noted the commissioner's position is that they were not raised at the district court level the only issue raised at the district court arguing that dr cole that the erred by giving too much weight to dr chua ski by by relying on dr chua ski's opinion too much which is in fact a completely different legal theory an entirely different opinion an entirely different issue excuse me and it is only the she has added palin is at it credibility arguments and arguments with respect to other positions with respect to the new evidence that  like to discuss it was its appellants burden to prove a more restrictive r f c from this evidence this evidence post dates the decision by fifteen to eighteen months there's nothing worsened is not necessarily surprising and doesn't give any insight into what the condition was fifteen to eighteen months prior the appellant has a remedy for having this evidence addressed by the commissioner which is to file a new application and then although it's not on the record the appellant has in fact filed a new application and received a favorable decision from the commissioner contemporaneous to this evidence the new evidence that was presented the finding her eligible for benefits as of based on the evidence and evidence submitted afterwards so starting approximately around the time of the new evidence so accordingly there is really no there's really no reason for men to be warranted in this instance because the proper mechanisms told the judge hearing that she wasn't ready for surgery not that it wasn't more than ted so dr did not did not like i said evaluate her knee been consistent in two thousand and thirteen she was reporting she had limitations with blocking sitting standing and she needed short breaks in two thousand and fourteen she had same problems and also she had that worsened so she was she was and she testified to the judge that she can walk for fifteen minutes she can step for fifteen minutes she can stand for fifteen minutes she can sit for fifteen minutes and then she has to rest for fifteen minutes either reclining or laying down that is consistent with the medical evidence it's consistent with the opinions and what's it upon himself to say the m r i and the x ray is from november two thousand and fourteen and january two thousand and fifteen weren't consistent with her testimony work at the student with doctor who know c from two thousand and fourteen thank