never dealt with by the other three doctors and eye doc the first the second i am he guy the one that actually examined her and found that there was no swelling he did know about the finding two days later so i can't fault him for not commenting about it but the other three doctors they all and record reviewing doctors and they don't review all the records you've got an arbitrary and capricious decision if you follow their recommendations to stop playing benefits name is the second time i mean doctor saying that there's no swelling in two days later a doctor says well i find swelling you've got to somehow explain how is that what's the explanation you just can't ignore the second doctor  edison or situation never bothered to show the second i am a doctor the first time a doctor's report so you never saw that strangely the other three doctors except for doctor pain to the other three doctors that they hired her never even mention doctor or whatever it is report to a doctor pain mentions it but never explains it never discusses it never never tells us why we should disregard it  know as soon as it goes back to work back to them they can do another examination anyway so it really doesn't make any difference she's entitled to benefits up until because it's it was in the denial ab initio it was a denial after she had started  if you follow me i do fo say they don't explain but don't discuss well that the requirement is that the denial letter give the reasons or analysis of why the decision doesn't apply and was very important remember here is that compared to other cases where they're asking for a compare and contrast of the evidence like in montoro where the decisions were contemporaneous here the decisions were two and a half years apart and so the evidence had developed a lot in those two and a half years both the exams treating physicians labs x rays range of motion study and so under that kind of case the court found that under those circumstances where the reviewing doctors where there was an independent medical examination that the plan was not required to give a well you know chapter and verse comparison of the two cases but they're required to grapple with it isn't that what the case law says they have to explain in some way how that what weight they gave that and why they gave it that sort of weight they can't just mention it and fail to actually deal with it well the letter says that the security administration decision that had been made two and a half years prior was based on perhaps different records different standard or review and give a list of those reasons articulated the reasons and that's the standards required articulating the reasons and undertake there's no need to detail their reasons distinguishing the decision but simply to address them and and the fact that the records had developed that was a summary wasn't it was just a some rather summary statement it didn't appear to address the actual bases  the plan when they made the decision two and a half years after the so security ministration made its decision and it's reasonable to make it to come to a different decision at that point in time what can you point to that shows how the plan actually w and considered what the so security administration's decision was well the appeal to my letter says that it recognizes the fact that the benefits had been approved by security it recognized that they didn't know what the basis for that approval was and so it took into account that there would be different of it and say they didn't know what the basis of that approval was well shouldn't they have known shouldn't they have checked into that well and then as a practical matter they did have the same evidence in front of them so for example the medical records that existed at the time of this insecurity decision were also in front of the plan at the time of the appeal and denial and so they we know that they reviewed the same records that were in front of all of the same records well those records that were in exam in existence in two thousand and eleven plus all the evidence that had developed in the meantime and what's key here is that plaintiffs conditions were susceptible to improvements and so if you and actually started any treatment in two previous i am e's dr report dr wiring that is correct that the second said that they considered all of the previous medical records where's the evidence that they considered dr y ricks report so a couple of things on that your hon in the first place just because doctors front of us in the second i need doesn't specifically mention the previous i me it doesn't mean that he didn't consider it so we're just supposed to guess or assume a b he did without any evidence of that not at all your honor but what we do see also is in the the three additional rheumatologists who review the records they all specifically they did review those records including the reich i mean that was earlier and what's important to note is that again dr weil right in that edition initial two thousand and twelve i mean he said she is she could take new medications and specifically were recommended that it be a new examination two years later because her condition could change and that's exactly what happened and so the updated information is what is far more important is the question is not what conditions does this individual have but can she what restrictions as you have and do they impact her ability to do her job and so this isn't like the salome case or the saffron case where there was no independent examination this was an in person examination there were a range of motion studies dr sort of often did his in person evaluation and reese conclusions about what this individual was and was able to do what hers restrictions were and so that's why it's more reasonable to rely on that updated information that included new medications and changes in her situation the question again is not whether she had fibromyalgia all of the these doctors agreed that there was a diagnosis of fibromyalgia the question is how does that condition impact her ability to do the job and that's why it's important that as in that's a  as in the joining case where there were independent medical or in person examinations the judge is the independent medical examiner dr was able to form an opinion about what impact that had on her ability to do her job and under this kind of case you know where the doctors had the in person or have you considered what the vission said and it's a cut in jordan i was those are fibromyalgia cases as well under the abuse of discretion standard that is enough is enough for the judges to do that and form opinions and then decide whether or not this individual could do her job with regard to the social security our counsel said that they had the reports of the source here to the administration when they made their decision but we know that they didn't there's a letter it's an s r fifty eight from social security which lists the medical records that the social security department had with regard to a mr cruise barkha and not one of those records is in the administrative record so they didn't have they knew of these records existed pain but he never explained why her pain when she was sitting would not prevent her from it would not inhibit her ability to work also nobody ever commented on dr they say they read way which is report nobody ever