next case on our county versus commissioner sense of security summary of symptoms and the doctor i mean as without any citation to where in the record the specific abilities and limitations are reflected in the record so that if the st part is  judge rejected it the only opinions and like many cases before us including rose they l j cannot substitute her opinion for the competent medical opinion and more recently had a responsibility to get them accurate information on which she could rely not so much accurate but just sufficient information and evidence relating to physical mental functioning so that's absent from the clear that the wreckers insufficient then they l g has to do more than just rely on her only opinion they have to actively develop the record for that so so even in alone is not that they don't the only issue is even if the record is found to be fully developed there's no explanation for the findings and late judge poor is that the identification of wh brief is just citing bog where judges have been found to adequately explain their decisions all those cases are distinguished i trust each one of my reply but each one of those there is either another opinion that supports specific findings or there is obvious evidence in the record such as can't keep the case where there is an informal opinion within the treatment notes in cases like monroe cited as well there is obvious activities of daily living that support greater functions such as snowmobiling jet skiing things like that in this case that she explains it has a judge summarises on page twenty four of her decision activities are very limited  wasn't able to go to mental health appointments because of her mobility issues so there's nothing obvious in the rock and they all j's critique is not overwhelmingly capet compelling to explain there was not an opinion and there was not a trading starts opinion on this the opinions that the algae had said that she was much less restricted than the algae ultimately found in the r c and what happened here is the a l j did not substitute h account here and gave her a sit stand option even though there was no objective medical evidence showing that this was necessary the l j went above and beyond and looked at the medical evidence in the light most favorable to cook here there w asks representative if the record was complete and the representative said it was and yet later the l j proactively noted the absence of certain records and gave cook's represented at the time to submit those records the representative records the l j reviewed them and incorporated them into her decision and cooke is now arguing that there's somehow these missing notes out there but she hasn't shown that these documents actually exist she hasn't shown that there's complete enough to make an informed decision supported by substantial evidence that permits a meaningful judicial review and entered as trading source opinion is not necessary to that there is ample medical evidence here that cook was restricted than she was able to divine from the doctor's medical report she said i think it's something worse than yes your yes your honor i would agree i think l j here why and looked at the evidence the  objective medical evidence and the medical pinions in the light most favorable to cup chain cooperated greater restrictions into the r f c than the opinions or some of the object of medical evidence established and so to the extent that cook now argues there's a she was sixty nine and i thought to know here that cook's current firm began representing her and october two thousand and seventeen they did gather evidence and they submitted that happened and so they peals counsel it didn't show that she is more restrictive th and her current law firm didn't snip any evidence to the district court nor to this court so respectfully they're speculating here that there's additional evidence out there that proves a more restrictive r f c but that was her opinion that this woman could do sedentary work if she only has to stand for thirty minutes and then sit for fifteen minutes there was her opinion i felt i know dr who said that inferences from evidence that was not in the record no this evidence wasn't a record but l j looked at the objective medical evidence following the surgeries such as heart surgeons reports of how well she was doing and they a did exactly what the regulations tell an algae to do give more or less weight to a medical and depending on the evidence as a whole and the regulations are very clear that they all js are supposed to consider opinions in light of all of the row where is that if it happens i believe that came from cook's subjective complaints that said it's very difficult for her to stand it's very difficult for her to walk that they all j did have medical evidence that there were the medical of opinions of no restrictions and the testimony that she had pain and concluded that she could stand for thirty minutes of the last good ship correct that she was drawing an inference from evidence that was in the record including the medical evidence correction or and that was the same thing she did with the use of a cane there wasn't objective medical evidence showing that mess cook needed to use a cane but she said at the hearing that i need to use a cane and so the a l j incorporated that into the r c finding which is very restrictive and which took all the evidence into account in the light most favorable to cook sad was much more restrictive and you know what is there any medical have been mentioned the record to the effect that mr pope could not stand for thirty minutes just just based upon her testimony and sears this purpose is to look at what their legal name by the l j and sent down for a minute dish on the ministry of proceedings based on a full and fair record so we weren't be represented the claimant for only a few months we were able to get