seeks reversal of a flawed administrative law judge's decision denying her claim for disability benefits supplemental security income the else's decision was based on logical factual and legal errors and requires a reversal and rem my name is joseph sellers appearing on behalf of mr johnson after she was denied at the initial reconsideration levels of s s a's adjudicatory process miss johnson submitted new evidence from her more recent treatment that evidence included her first lumbar spine m r i new diagnoses of ridiculous secretary eidos peripheral neuropathy and carpal tunnel syndrome in her left dominant hand she also submitted an opinion from dr hendrick will find in essence that she could not perform full time competitive work because this evidence was largely generated after they reviewed the evidence at the initial reconsideration the state agency consultants were not able to review this evidence and denying her claim now didn't he feels councils and they said this evidence we're going to make any difference to them anyway that's the government's argument yes and argument in response to that is that those doctors had no idea that she had these four additional impairments that were discovered after they submitted their opinions so they couldn't even begin to understand that she had problems with their left hand her dominant hand they didn't know that she had radiating pain down her left leg confirmed she didn't they didn't know that she had performed neuropathy in her feet they didn't know all of these impairments that would add additional limitations so the government's argument that the ail jase failure to secure an updated opinion did not prejudice mr johnson is baseless because these additional impairments almost by definition bring additional limitations which should have been considered and should have been accounted for and that's the clearest example of the jays pour attempt to play doctor in this case and review this new evidence on her own without guidance from a medical professional so i think it would have certainly been beneficial to have if she had reservations about the most up to date opinion from dr hendrix it would have benefited both yale j and miss johnson to have expert guidance on what this new evidence me regarding mr johnson's functional capacity of subjective complaints and her claim in general whether or not that would have been enough is unclear based on how well the doctor viewed them medical records but it certainly would have helped and would remove the prejudice from mr johnson right the tail j also rejected the most up to date treating and there's certainly a treating doctor but the most up to date medical opinion from a source who examined miss johnson and her rejection of that doctor's opinion was there she failed to cite specific legitimate reasons constituting good cause for doing so instead she cited broadly to what she alleged ring consistencies with other evidence in the record  her own understanding of social we know exactly what these contradictions are we don't know from the l j's decision your honor the government made an attempt to contradict dr hedrick opinion with dr examination but it failed to explain how those two or anything consistent it cited no medical opinion to that effect it cited no medical evidence that if you think there reconcilable can you explain why i think at the very least even if dr come in and use generally normal examination is inconsistent with dr hedrick opinion all that shows is that mr johnson's condition worsened after the very least in that sense the time span right and they all jays are required to look at any twelve month period before them in which they claim it could be considered disabled so that worsen and if that's all that that shows should have been considered but the l g did not consider that so that a possible outcome here could be a partial disability during part of the period being claimed correct a later on set date as opposed to her original alleged to revisit these things periodical is i recall there are sometimes that people start on disability and they graduate off of that so to speak yet there is a continuing disability review process that might in theory everybody supposed to undergo but it doesn't happen for everybody and then follow up this with mr johnson she was approved on a later application so so she was yes ok with a later onset date yes twenty fourteen i believe is that the current situation yes as far as i know she's still receiving benefits what are we doing here we're looking at the period before that scene what you want the money for the period before that she would get a financial  please the court my name is meredith shocked and i represent the acting commissioner of social security the l g here provided specific legally supportive reasons for her determination the doctor had tricks opinion was entitled to little weight that determination and her residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed i'd like to address a couple points just off the bat that were raised by my counsel and i think could use a little clarification if first off is with regard to what evidence was available to the state agency physicians the state agency of physicians in reviewing the record i  had dr miller's excuse me had dr miller's records those were presented to the state agency physician dr sands on reconsideration he had those records that reflected dr miller's assessments both from his johnson diagnoses and his observations of her abilities he had the m r i result and he provided an opinion that was consistent with the earlier state agency opinion and consistent with the residual functional capacity here with regard to the purported left hand limitations that are reflected in dr hendricks opinion and this case there are no records no treatment records that reflect any finding of carpal tunnel syndrome or of this failings test or the channels tests that are reflected or referenced and ms johnson's reply brief those are not reflected anywhere in the treatment notes the only place that they will show up are in dr had rick opinion so there's no reason to think that seeing the additional treatment notes would have changed the impact would have had an impact on the opinions and in that regard your honor asked about whether the appeals council had commented on the additional evidence it was not additional evidence after the l j decision all of the evidence was available to the l j l j had dr miller's records say dr hendricks records which were only two seen by other people in that office and other dates and the way the medical terrorists typically deliver these days people are lucky to see a doctor sometimes that may be true but it wasn't the nurse practitioner who provided the opinion here although there  nurse practitioner who saw her more regularly than other people in the office that nurse practitioner didn't offer an opinion here and there's no indication the doctor had tricks or any other physician reviewed those notes or examined them in connection with the opinion that was given excuse me in this case the l j did carefully examine dr had rick's opinion and gave very specific reasons and her opinion for and her decision excuse me for why she has signed a little weight to those which she found the opinions inconsistent with dr hendrix own treatment records which were that the treatment records doctor hedrick treatment records reflected improvement as did the treatment records from each of the nurse but she aside from the fact that the two encounters which i'm not sure i mean it's a whole lot she attaches negative weight to the idea that she should have a low impact exercise program and that  you know she medical source statement actually it's somebody else but anyway i don't see very many reasons i mean you can improve and still be not doing well enough to work with there's a forty percent of this forty percent numbers thrown around a lot johnson could sit for five to ten minutes at a time that was stand for five minutes could have limitations in every aspect of using her arms and then dr has groups and his treatment notes said that she should undertake a low impact cardiovascular exercise the l g reasonably considered that it would be very difficult for somebody who could stand for only five minutes and who could only sit for five minutes to undertake a regular regime of cardiovascular exercise he did well but he doesn't really define it i mean i think low impact cardiovascular activity and i think maybe he wants her to walk you know from one end of her house to the other and then sit down and then get up and walk to the other again that would be low impact cardiovascular activity and walking is actually you know turns out to be in fact an excellent cardiovascular activity it could be if one can sustain it for more than four minutes well but maybe you start with the four minutes and build up your strength he's trying to help her get better that's certainly possible your honor and he listed i'm sorry the l j listed other aspects though of the treatment notes that she also found wer inconsistent are not supportive of mr hendricks opinion she noted that dr hendricks said that the medications were helping miss johnson and that they were effective and allowing her to maintain her ability to work and perform her daily daily activities that her pain levels i mean she still thought it was reporting even with some improvement i mean i've known people who've improved and are still feeling terrible you know that you're only possible from a nine out of ten pain to a seven out of ten pain well that's an improvement maybe not enough that could be possible your honor but that the nurse practitioners at this very same practice decreased her dosage of medication over time and dr hedrick himself said that he believed that they would be able to leave that to cease pain medication with exercise and diet changes that's not an indication of somebody who's severely limited p l d reasonably considered those and the a reasonably considered that the opinions and dr hendricks work sheet were also inconsistent with other evidence including evidence from her as johnson's other treating provider dr miller who had regular  flawed so what mr sorry what dr miller recorded on his treatment notes was that she had a normal musculoskeletal exam meaning that her muscular skeletal system was functioning fine on that day hendrik and from the nurse practitioners there that she had full muscle strength she had generally good functioning she was able to sit comfortably she was able to walk into the room so what the l g a was considering was not the diagnoses per se because those and this case were not per se disabling the algae was looking at evidence of the impact of those diagnoses and you know counsel said that it was that these diagnoses almost by definition imposed limitations but that's not the case the l j was required and did look at the evidence of what the actual limitations were reflected in the actual evidence it was the l g s obligation it was her duty to examine the treatment no and that's what she did here and she fairly assess the doctor had rick's opinion it was unsupported by and consistent with those other treatment notes and she provided a fair amount of detail as to what those inconsistences were and surely the detail that she provided meets what this court has called a minimal standard a lack standard that if she has demonstrated she's considered the factors her decision should be affirmed and so we would ask that you do that here all right thank you thank you anything for th produced his opinion at the reconsideration level you could only have had one of dr miller's records based on time alone so the fact that he had one note from dr miller does not negate the fact that the bulk of mr johnson's treatment was produced into evidence and that evidence consists of additional impairments additional positive objective findings and a positive m r i which the the government also argues that there is no evidence of carpal tunnel problems until the opinion they're still in the opinion it's still evidence of a problem with her wrist of in her dominant hand regardless of whether or not it popped up at the end of the period before the ale or at the beginning they're still evidence of problems with her wrist and the m j still has to address address that evidence and she failed to do so she failed to address that evidence she failed to address the evidence of secularly ictus she failed to address the evidence ridiculous op with the all of it gone because she took it upon herself to review the records by herself and did a shoddy job of it with regard to dr hedrick to opinion your honor correct improvement is almost entirely relative as you said she was still complaining of extensive amounts of pain even with the forty percent improvement with regard to the exercise as you were alluding to it was to treat  conditioning a problem someone has after they don't get enough physical activity which is consistent with her allegations of reduced physical activity and reduced physical capacity that her doctor wanted to get better doesn't mean she's not disabled it just means he's trying to do his job there's never though any definition for it beyond just the statement low impact that's correct it's very obvious as can be in this record as is the statement about maintaining a deals and the ability to work with the vague nature of it it's just the elders conjecture as to what it meant and they're not allowed to deny a claim based on conjecture you have to base it on evidence and the l j