spellings and we're asking you simply to remain on this case for full consideration of all the evidence that's in the record in particular there are two pieces of evidence that were not considered by the administr judge one was the evidence of fusion surgery on her low back which occurred after the season about a year after it was added to the record and was before the appeals council but because of that situation the a did not know that they had her back pain was addressed by this invasive surgery so he could not take that into account when evaluating her pain also the ail j did not see the surgery records and it could not have known about the timeline that was involved starting in one thousand nine hundred seven when she first injured her low back and had back surgery and then had this other surgery this latest surgery in two thousand made his decision that the medical treatment of the back pain had not ended it was still going on and supposedly or hopefully ended a resolve after his decision he found her incredible  she was found not credible but other information well that i am suggesting that this surgery in fact did that because the surgery occurred a number of years after she applied for benefits and it when the body cast was taken off it was about four weeks after her date last insured and in the doctor's office where she had her task taken off her pain immediately returned when the cast was taken off so it was clear that time that fusion surgery was going to did they did acknowledge it and they put it in the record and they said it didn't change their decision or the jay's decision so they considered it they looked at the commented on it but it didn't work into the timeline right i'm not saying it was you made a mistake on that issue i'm saying that he didn't see that in this i'm saying the o j did make a mistake on the body cast issue them because he didn't understand the purpose of the body cast along and he also made a finding that the body cast cured her back pain after she had it all he said since her body cast had been on she had been better but that was incorrect so he misperceived the purpose and made a finding not supported by the evidence in regards to what happened she didn't improve permanently after the body cast had been on she only proved while the body cast was on and the body catches on on the date for insurance expired record in that after the body cast came off i think they kind of had to speculate a little bit about well if surgery was indicated by the casting then within why did she go so long without surgery and i think he started speculating about she wasn't in very bad shape but there seems to be references in the record to the past several possible reasons for her not having surgery immediately in one thousand nine hundred seven including her getting pregnant moving to northern california  dr sure her doctor changed his mind right after the body cast came on he said he didn't think surgery would be recommended and then there's a letter in the record a transcript for twenty two where a pain center said we're sorry that this patient fell through the cracks so it's unclear exactly why the well hang on a second i read that letter you know it would have been easier for us if this full administrative record had been reproduced because wear i think later on in a pregnancy after she did get large she didn't want to have another brace fitted for her that would be appropriate for her size a time and so she was in some contact with him during that time yes she was in some but good morning your honor is my name is grace carter my system regional council for the social security administration i represent the apple e killing barnhart the decision of the commissioner supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed the hypothetical however on which she were lying and say anything about pain at all right the hypothetical relied on all of these limitations based on ping for example do certain things and say why and it doesn't say anything about pain at all well it's certainly they also i certainly didn't find that that because of medications or because of side effects from pain medication that she had any further limitations that is true because least indicate that he more than adequately considered the record and considered her her claims of paintings and other limiting factors for example the r f c as adopted by the a l j included a limitation suggested by the claima hospital limitations that were given by dr miller and the additional limitations to l j a doctor it was to require that a vocational expert be used to determine whether or not there were in the economy other jobs that the claimant could perform given those limitations they all j did that the vocational expert identified other jobs once it was determined that she could not perform her past relevant work based on those limitations extreme hospital limitations that the l j consult a vocational expert that was done and the vocational expert so opinion was accepted by the a l j on both the question of whether or not she could perform or pass relevant work and but not the entire period i mean as you know our regulations require you to have continuous disability not broken up periods disability what you say ok found in fact was that she had not demonstrated a period of continuous phillis disability meeting our our twelve month durational period recognizing that there were perhaps periods of time when she was on her back for example presumably during the time that she was past it however her obligation was to to show and continues to be to show that she was continuously disabled during that time frame what this new evidence reflects on her haps more than anything affects it clearly because it was fusion surgery on her lower back and the body cast was on there three and a half years or early early or to test the effects of possible fusion surgery so that that's where the direct relation comes in that's all i have for no