some significant errors of the l g a with that we're not harmless errors and they require either and word of benefits or remission for further proceedings in this case i would like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal i guess the first found and he goes forward with the point that there's nothing even assessed in the record that shows that she has any nonexistent limitations she can do the full range of setting her rebelling can she do it not only am i not rejecting these opinions but there are no such opinions in the record and that have been assessed this was a very significant reversible error because the judge went on to say that he found that the d d s state agency physicians the ones that are so strict hires to review the files and on counted for fifty four that also that she could not see it was limited reaching in all directions that's it for fifty five that's from the state exam or who the judge said was an expert and who never rejected those opinions if we accept those opinions if that we say the judge did not direct did not properly discredit those opinions their credit is a matter of law the vocational expert at the hint at the hearing testif two thousand now there's an interesting issue that's a little bit more complex i think here than what the district court thoughts about when they say when they made the statement well it may well be that when she had her second surgery in her second who needed to she is disabled and and but that's after her date last insured one of the problems that we have the judge said that on march of two thousand and eight last insured that she was she was not disabled on that date well that was just two months before her first surgery she was having significant problems on that date it was confirmed by many physicians that she was disabled and couldn't work on that date and had been since one thousand nine hundred eighty now if she's she should have been of a grant of at least a close before her first surgery granted because there was approximately about a six month period of time when she was symptom free if she had been granted her closed period from ninety eight to two thousand as just as the evidence suggests there would be a disability but no longer be march of two thousand and it would be moved out into later into two thousand and two well past the period of her second herniated disc and she'd be eligible again for benefits because the time you're on disability then dr linder who was called back after hearing by the judge as the judge's own medical expert stated at five ninety seven that during this period of or prior to her her date last ensured she should do no overhead work and this she i believe the proper remedy is to reverse and grant benefits because in leicester the case law says that if a l j just not properly discredits the treating physician or the others physicians examine efficiency and use their credit as a matter of law in this case if she had to lay down if you missed work that she would be found disabled she could not do any s t a work is what the vocational expert testified at the hearing but that doesn't it wouldn't be up to this court devising the immigration judge or the living on a paying attention to the treating physicians yes in order to pay benefits you have to be a twelve month period of disability and the record is well developed that there was a twelve month period of disability from one thousand nine hundred eighty eight up and through past her first surgery her her doctor branch had made a mistake on one of those forms and said she had surgery march of two thousand the surgical reports in the record it was in may seventh of two thousand when she had her first surgery not made the neurosurgeon dr thomas that he removed the color from her neck in july of two thousand now there was a period of time from that period july of two thousand and twelve january of two thousand and one when she was relatively symptom free granted she wasn't doing anything she did have then went in two thousand and one tried to go back to work but that job only lasted a month because her symptoms flared back up again which dr either it said all along back in one thousand nine hundred eight that she needs rest periods to do that aren't accommodated in the work place and she has a work to go to her pain is going to increase that's exactly what happened in two thousand and one she got a new m r i showed bulging disk and then a large herniated disk at the level just below where she had the prior surgery so there's  month period between july of two thousand and january two thousand and one when she was relatively symptom free and she was grateful she says oh great i don't have fibromyalgia she was happy about it she wanted to have something real something tangible you know that she put her things that said i'm not sure which positions is that you're saying but there was no exception taken to the with which testimony as to which positions which positions were addressed hello or that i'm taking to have some concerns i don't know that he did go beyond he raised concerns partly because the plaintiffs are the appellant at least twice asked him to participate in her disability finding or reporting but i believe he raised the possibility about sixty but then did not subsequently rely on that and his the essence of his rejection of the disability opinions was is a very good point another interesting wrinkle in this case yes it is primarily just subjective there is a degree of objective testing that the american college of rheumatology suggests which is to test for the tender points and it's to test specifically for pain at the tender points not just tenderness and to reach a proper diagnosis of five miles you should have eleven out of eighteen pain at eleven out of eighteen tender points dr  the doctor either did do ten or point exams what was in error was when in the brief of the defendant they said in their brief in three different places pages ten thirteen and twenty five that are multiple tender points and they showed that there were no multiple tender points is on exams by dr eiger the this is under the heading joint exams joint exams for ankle m t s doesn't stand for multiple tender the stands for metal char still financial joints of the ankle she didn't have any tender point in her ankle and that was a joint exam for the ankle three different times defender points that she doesn't have tender points because of that exam wrong sam wrong part of the body  trigger points or different tender points and we simply supply the the article from the health authority of article and help from that indicated that trigger points and tender points are different trigger points aren't used to diagnose