we are faced with a question of first impression and that is interpretation of the statute that requires the commissioner to make reasonable efforts that a pediatrician or other appropriate specialist  we know that the l j made no effort to call a medical expert to evaluate the case of the individual instead the a based his decision and i'm quoting directly my autumn is not enough to fulfill the obligations of the district court although i realize the district court's decision is in what's being reviewed here but the district court made what i consider to be a mistake the institutionalization the addition the case involved the testimony and i think that was very important even the trace that she was credible and she identified a number of deaths that i think a medical expert would tried mightily to find anything at all and i couldn't find a thing not a thing because in this trial this is a cut back on the statue of the cut back as i recall on my benefits of available is not in cases of child disabilities congress appears to have been focused on getting someone who's familiar with child diseases and development so that other experts other individual that enough if they are just someone who's in it's experience that i'm dealing with psychiatric problems or rheumatoid arthritis or whatever it may be doesn't necessarily have to be a pediatrician or does does the do the people who testify evaluating my case have to be specifically qualified in childhood diseases that would certainly be my twenty seven i believe on benefits to children but i did take the trouble to specify the view of qualified pediatrician or other individual like knowledge through evaluate the case and what i'm concerned satisfy the statute by saying well you know they're examining or consulting doctors here who fit the category o having pediatric type experiencer that's enough to satisfy the mandate of the statute i don't find that an appealing reading of the statute doesn't seem consistent with what congress that in mind if they wanted an expert who would  that expertise to help him or her evaluate the caved and that's why i'm concerned even in the given the number of people you're listing here that those people really evaluate the case or did they come in as we so often see the case yesterday where the surgeon looked at the woman's chronic sinus condition but he was just looking at a narrow issue yes he was an expert in sinusitis or whatever but he wasn't there to evaluate the full picture and you all were arguing your administration was arguing well you know there's not enough evidence to support there so how do we how do we assure that the ale j s to actually treat th congressional mandate seriously usually you're right you're correct when you when the l t a does send the klayman out for an evaluation it is usually just a snapshot at that point in time on some occasions evaluators are able to review some of the medical evidence of record and they usually anything so sometimes they they might evaluate the case the way the commissioner usually has not have any medical evidence they might just have you know just a couple reports from occupational therapist a speech therapist or you know lay witness reports and this is a way ensure that you have at least have  appropriate specialist evaluate the case and that's what happened in this case the client was the case was evaluated by two two state agency physicians and they came in at what stage true but as we heard in a different context of the judicial officer can make statements that push the right buttons but substantively do something quite different and the concern one has when they repeatedly cites the wrong process he may invoke the statute but how do we know he wasn't really apply a different standard even though he invoked the condition because under the new statute he was more stringent it was more stern and become disabled he just went through the new functional domains and he came to that there what yes there was some improvement but under the under the new review the available medical evidence and everything in this case was not available to those physicians in particular the commission relies upon dr leonard's second evaluation  a physician who had testified at the hearing would have had both of those items of evidence available to him or her to evaluate the case and that i think is very important the only other point i want to make his about this standard of review by the l j rather and that is that it's hard for me to understand how the commissioner can say well this business about medical improvement wasn't important because he also cited the statute record and send it off to an expert and say you know here's a list of interrupt victorias and send me a copy of them and love me to respond and you know we could go down that road as a practical matter i think that's more difficult than having a an expert actually come into the hearing where you can cross examine them and get it a justify a reversal and we know for award of benefits under snyder having said that if you just bungled up the documents themselves and sent them to medical experts if your they are read them and give me your opinion that still wouldn't substitute for what i believe is the more