scope of the period during which the disability was to be determined and i must let me ask you this if you st of all it seems but a pretty routine thing for administrative law judges to do they can see the person of the person says i can't walk you know across the room and yet they are walking across the room they're better off now he's better off i don't know if you're suggesting that he was disabled as of january st two thousand and fourteen and now he's better and so any benefits he might have should be terminated or are what you're saying but in and of itself for the administrative law judge to say that he's able to sit through the hearing for thirty minutes that he was able to walk out of the room he was able to pull out and so forth as a common sense cumulative bit of evidence i don't see where in the law that's defined as inappropriate where it's an appropriate  is somebody coming along with evidence after the date less insured that shows that they're worse off than they were before the date less insured and they ask that there be sort of an extrapolation backwards to say the person must and he had a heart operation just before the nd hearing in two thousand and eighteen in fact we supplemented those records just to show that these are chronic conditions that are not going to be resolved throughout a lifetime of mystical power which now only going to get worse as he gets older so that was the reason but in terms of the scope of inquiry with respect to his disability or not both locational experts and both administrative judges that h birds on the commission the burners on the commission to prove that mystic applied which could do other work during the period in question which is from good deed of onset august one thousand and twelve through the date last insured when he lost his insurance  period of disability that runs only through the state last insured or are you seeking an open ended period of just civility the latter judge then whether he is disabled now all matters the date last insured matters he has to be disabled by then correct but he also has to be disabled now in order to get an open ended string of benefits right now we both were seeking an open ended about his ability to sit during the hearing despite testifying that he couldn't do what he was obviously doing and you're telling us that the administrative law judge would not take that into account because it was past the date last insured and that would be true only if the date last ensured were the last date on which he was seeking benefits but it isn't if mr claridge became disabled as the moved to a different approach in the a i'll chase opinion for example this is a forty two seems to be page seven it might go through four different numbering systems here but page seven talks about the bicep tear continuing pain but then he says the undersigned however noted this weakness would not be problematic with invite work residual functional capacity and  then he makes some other comments about his his medical situation at the time all of which eventually feeds into the residual functional acidy determination that's laid out at the bottom of page five in the top of page six looking at this and what is the question well the coin is the administrative law judge has addressed his physical capabilities during the period from onset to last insured and has also made some comments about it afterwards our review is for some substantial evidence so why should we on what ground is there something so troubling about this that we should say doesn't count as substantial evidence because of both vocational experts which were brought in by the government to testify as to both ability to do passwords with both of them little doubt as well as any other work in the hated that mr klein that would be more than thirty percent off task because of its myriad of conditions that he was suffering from a would be unable to be employed in any other position because of those problems often ask means to exclude lunches and breaks he would not be able to perform eight hours a day as were required five days a week week weight to his medical records which show that he had a degenerative disease and back pain related functional and patients and focused claimants appearance on the day of him you know whether he could stand and open the door and go to the bathroom to relieve himself this judge bensky who was the nd rate of lodgers saw the claimant a cold total of about forty five minutes thirty five minutes in a sitting position roughly in ten minutes as he left the room went to the bathroom and returned and based on that observation you draw all the conclusions that he drew as to the credibility of the claimant and ignored five treating doctors three independent m instance that the objective evidence in particular the examination that exists in this case and in particular the records the examination notes focused on the time roughly within that outlined by mr  of time outlined by mr price as the most relevant time and in those five treatments there were no significant limitations identified or hinds anywhere in the records in fact dr divan was recommended for mr mr kepler ravitch to undergo distress observations a clinical observation by medical professionals is relevant evidence of the diagnostic imaging what little there is in this case showed nothing of any sort of significant limitations in terms a very thin narrow road because you don't complain if they intrude upon the administrative law judges responsibility to decide whether a series of whether series of problems amounts to  a disability for purposes of the act on the other hand if they don't say enough it's just a diagnosis but they're supposed to say i think it's it's not asking too much of the doctors to outline what they find as a diagnosis based on their recommendations and their experience and knowledge of the medical field but then to also kind of further flesh it out based on their examination records  agency might be asking doctors to right a bunch of things in there notes that the doctor has no particular personal reason to write in their notes doctors don't write down can lift money pounds frequently and can crawl and climb up ladders and all these things that the commissioners interested in if you ask a doctor to perform a test like to add or if one of the consulting examiners at the agency sometimes uses than sign the doctors told this is what we're interested in but if somebody just comes and presents with you know back pain doctors just going to try to figure out what can i do about the back pain maybe i'll give you some medication why i think that's true your honor but the doctor also in the records and the court knows this from from looking at these cases the doctors will suss out and will develop that the person has an intelligent or an abnormal or earth can't get on the on the stool or can't get you know through the door so the doctors will add detail when that detail presents itself when they when they have some medical reason to add that detail but the question whether something's medically wrong with someone overlaps with it is not quite the same as whether the limitations that the person has or the types of things that would prevent them from work which is the question that the agency is concerned with so the that there may be a mismatch between the kinds of things the doctor for his or her own purposes is going to write and the kinds of things that the agency needs in the end to make its assessment well  i understand that but the important thing is that the ministry of law judge in reviewing the record as a whole will have multiple doctors taking a look at a particular record and developing that record with their own observations so we understand what the courts perspective if there is a one off where there was one doctor who saw mr cowper a bitch one time saying well you know he didn't he didn't look like it back was hurting that day maybe he had a good day but that's not the case in this case here in this case we have physicians over the course of a year and a half all of whom noting that mr kaplan are a bitch at worst presenting with some range of motion limitations that the ala j it's the agency's position that this reflects the able j s studied reasoning and review of the record and giving mr kaplan honestly the benefit of the doubt in terms of the record that he presented and giving something more restrictive than any other position opined anywhere else in the record  the the agency asking him to review an x ray and even dr divan of a true could have been a treating physician opinion source didn't give any sort of opinion that discuss the nature and severity of mr kaplan ravages impairments so the l j is left with looking at the only the only competent physician opinions present in this case are from the are from the agency consultants who themselves render j s residual functional capacity is more restrictive than anything else found in the record and that's what's in this case mr kaplan average points out nowhere where the ala j went beyond stand or walk however we'll j in the very next sentence discusses the need to be able to shift and alternate positions and posture and things of that nature again more restrictive than anything that dr model or  at recommended and then we get to obviously the ranges of motion additionally and with the small amount of time i have left mr mr kepler image appears to challenge the in the strait of law judges subjective symptom analysis  the observations at the hearing as the court noted are relevant but they're not the primary driver in the l j the termination in this case the l j noted in the decision that mr kaplan or just presentations and statements in the record conflicted with the objective medication finally if the court would imagine a lot of the trove of thank you you're on the case was taken under advisement and the fact that my medical response i make your time has expired counsel cases taken under advisement on the court will be in