where there were changed circumstances in this and getting my to the issue of where we feel like there was a legal air our first position is there was a there was a large weight gain which is important in this case as obesity according to social security is an important factor whether it's just obesity alone or and then the regulations and the rulings  state that when combined with arthritis that they can create more functional limitations and pain then if just a if you just had arthritis a long distance when it's like too close to three hundred pounds or something right she is now at the did have a way and that's two hundred thirty some pounds in december of ninety eight before her date last insured the your argument was worth that there should have been consideration close to the insured to inform whether there was whether or not that should be retroactively applied that deletion of the listing i think is irrelevant because either way the judge committed legal error in this case either shouldn't said yes you met the listing for obesity and granted her benefits the only reason the first day l j didn't do it he said was because in effect when the second l j issued his decision there was a completely new muscle skeletal listings that had been completely rewritten adding language concerning specifically concerning obesity and the effects of obesity he didn't mention that that at all  decision he didn't mention that he was considering any listings the new listings or any old listings he just he just basically what the second l j said is i adopt the first female j decisions i'm not going to give you an individual review it's not going to really determine what your case is now i'm just going to find the same thing male j did five years ago when you were thirty pounds lighter and you didn't meet the listing for obesity so all we still are worst changed circumstances and l j committed legal air in not considering he didn't mention her weight gain and it was in the record that there was a large weight gain that type of weight gain is significant because she went from non listing level to listing level in that with would point out there are some discrepancy in her height in the first in his decisions that she was five foot four but we have no medical records because dale j didn't admit the medical records from the prior hearing into the file so we don't have any background for that we do have the the social security's own state agency physicians who they say who reviewed the file in this record in this case that she's five foot two and so we do have that in the in the medical records  section of the thought she's five two in the in this case and he didn't mention that change circumstances either the male j he made no findings as to what her height was to what or weight wise or evaluation of how that affected her claim which is all required under the rulings  regulations another important part of change circumstances i think in this case is the activities of daily living in the first case tales a little specifically made findings regarding her activities of daily living in the record at page thirty he said the claim that states that she takes care of her family she shops she does the laundry she does her housework the ael j in the second case made no findings regarding what her activities of daily living w center for new m r i her medical records with her doctor say that she didn't have insurance and so she couldn't get testing and then she got some insurance and she did look at some testing and she got to memorize and they showed degenerative disk changes and degenerative diseases at multiple levels in her spine and that was in two thousand and one well then shortly after that she was referred to specialist and she had another back surgery in two thousand and two she'd had if this was her second back surgery so in two thousand i'm sure that if she had a job she would miss four more days of work per month vocational experts said with that limitation she can't work or her treating doctor in one nine hundred ninety eight that she would need to lay down during the day because to take off the pressure from her obesity and her arthritis and and that she would and the vocational expert said that with that need to lay down she could not work at any job past work or other work morning honors court my name is david bloom and i sent the commissioner of social security plaintiff's case fails because she hasn't shown that her condition worsened significant only before her date last retrospective opinions are discredited per se they can be useful but this court has held several times that an l j may discredit such an opinion if the contemporaneous medical evidence from the relevant period support it that's exactly what we have here in one thousand nine hundred eight she went to the doctor only occasionally and more often for medication refills then for treatment for any impairment related to her back her weight water and was a housekeeper it's true that that notation in the record doesn't indicate how many hours a day she was doing that or how many hours a week but it is some indication supporting the male j's finding that she was able to cracked she works with her hands in water and as a housekeeper and further down the nurse practitioner diagnosed with the condition that as dermatitis of the hand secondary to frequent soaking in water so i mean she's claiming admittedly he didn't cite it a state agency reviewing physician dr charles wolf reviewed the record that he had before him at that time which did show some worsening her condition in two thousand and one and pages one thirty six through forty dr wolfe considered her back impairment and her obesity and he was aware of her weight gain by the time and he nonetheless concluded that as of twelve thirty one ninety eight she was able to do sedentary work that time level he had the opportunity to request back then that the l t a develop the record further he didn't do so in fact the l g a kept the records open for thirty days after the hearing for mr tree to submit additional medical these arguments have been brought up or at least develop more fully in the district and court and before this court but he had our opportunity to pursue those arguments pages one thirty six three one forty so given her age in her mid thirty's she was disabled either under the medical vocational guidelines so unless the panel has any additional questions that's all i have you very much  all j deny in this case we had come forward with positive evidence from her treating physician that said she was disabled and could not work at her late date last insured and had that to the administrative law judge did have that evidence and before him because what the only thing that the commissioner can point to is that there's not objective evidence to verify what or treating doctor says that is that she would miss work regularly and that she needs to lay down during the day for years social security said you're presumptively disabled at this height and this weight with this arthritis problems in your spine that's showing that there's objective evidence in this case that could lead to treating doctor giving such opinions that he