good morning honors and may please the court i'm michael scheuer and along with co counsel laurence fine hauser we represent the appellant she'll anderson it is undisputed that she landers and has several physical and mental severe impairment all of which her treating providers identified and attempted to treat those findings and the corresponding limitations imposed by or treaters are substantial objective medical evidence including standard diagnostic tests laboratory analyses despite those truths the l j improperly discounted miss anderson's physicians opinions or diminish the weight those opinions rightly deserved this controlling white if the opinions are consistent with objective medical evidence dr clevenger is aren't right he says he cites findings that are anywhere in the record do i understand was before the the alleged the date of onset of the disability onset and decided that was sufficient substantial evidence in the record when that's simply not the case and so we talked briefly about dr physically filled out a medical source and again based on the nine months of treatment and said that in doctors alleys of opinion miss anderson was unable to engage in substantial if you're a legal issue because he says six to twelve months expected improvement had medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or has lasted for sixty months and can be or can be expected to last at least sixteen months so that's precisely what he also says we expect improvement six to twelve months i need to develop the record and clarify this isn't some off hand comment these are this person could qualify under our regulations for disability or could not and so by failing to develop the record in that way they have the l g a erred and i know i know and so her conclusions and her medical opinions are also entitled to controlling weight and it is reasonable and it is substantial evidence to say that those impairments and those conditions especially in light of the worsening of course that this that ms anderson's impairments can take would contribute that manifested in an improper r f c hypothetical to the a to do vocational expert and if this court well knows if the hypothetical given to the a to the vocational expert is improper and or expert what if someone misses for days and what if someone can't actually it wasn't rocking it was lifting what if someone can't lift consistent with the way that dr clevenger described ms anderson's limitations and they all day said under those circumstances there are no jobs mr marsh will hear from you training physician opinion the commissioner does not dispute that opinion if given control in weight would preclude any type of substantial shameful activity however that that opinion was not entitled to any significant weight because revised the regulations but the regulations in place for this case clearly provide nursing not an was not an acceptable medical source opinion was not a medical opinion and she could not therefore qualify even as a trading s what i'll say is consistency in those opinions would not weigh in their favor so that said there's do light duty and eventually when it work a physical therapist trying to snyder released her for physical therapy and said her exam was completely male dr lobel psychologist psychologist after the st and so that's why it was that series of different injuries over time but i would point out that after the st injury is when she flew to thailand so she was already found workers compensation samas anderson once of those and nine of those twelve were consulting physicians or referred by the state in either her worker's compensation prison proceedings or disability proceedings some of them never saw miss anderson couldn't her out of a lineup and so when we're talking about giving credibility and weight to folks who are reading a cold record one time that strikes me as less relevant and less compelling then in this case the physicians who had the benefit of the ark the entire longitudinal view that the commissioner says should be important the physicians who are able to see from that st incident all the way through and see the records and see the development and claimed injury there were three injuries ultimately and that worker's comp decision was based on just the st but setting that aside impairments that the a l j identified and that the commissioner so long before the disease materialized and so it's just important to note the and we tried very hard to throughout our briefing make clear the physicians who are one time consulting physicians at the end of the day that this court's direction is clear if there's objective medical evidence that way that supports a controlling positions opinion it should be given controlling weight as long as it's not inconsistent and if it isn't consistent it should still be giving support given substantial weight and we go through it again in detail discuss the complete disregard that the l j gave to some of mr anderson's treating physicians which is just inconsistent with this court's precedent would