sure the evidence is actually sort of contrary evidence is actually much stronger than there is in this record there's always going to be a few ambiguity as in treatment notes when someone treats someone over ten years and as you know dozens and dozens and dozens of pitmen as they'll be ambiguous by going back to the rocketing seeing what does or does not support relying upon the the treating physician reported absent that we're left to have to search the record to do that ourselves so that's what the point of a straw was was absolutely aren't and this court cases have long made that point rosie callahan makes that same point that you know as with any administrative look ace one of the purposes of the of the rule is that a claimant must understand the question for you may about step three and listing one hundred and two i understood that mr de mars head was required to show that his inability to emulate effect last at least twelve consecutive months and that primary burden fell on him at the initial step and what we have here was some silence in the record about why there was no affirmative showing that he was unable to emulate effectively that well the ambulation effect of ambulation has to be for a period of at least twelve consecutive months you're correct that he did have periods where he needed to emulate if using crutches but there were other periods where he only used a cane obligation to clear up whether he was actually using one or two crutches if that was going to be a deterrent if aspect of the decision and yet he did nothing the l t a did nothing is it really fair to  the the less me really didn't come into play in this case until about february two thousand and nine so for most of the period on the lesson he was intact and i'm not bothering mr damaris according to the record and if you look at it in dr williams's opinion two thousand and sixteen dr williams relies on those problems with the less in his assessment so i think that needs to be noted what is the strongest medical very extreme the two thousand and sixteen opinion indicates that mr de mars was continuously dependent on bilateral crutches ever since two thousand and six which is clearly not supported in this record it also said that mr de mars had zero ability to sit is zero ability to stand in zero ability to walk which is not supported in this record and in the february two thousand and nine assessment indicating that yes mr marx had some capacity for sedentary work contradicts that and also it's notable that dr williams discussed the the effects of mr de marsa skills in training on his ability to work which suggests that from a purely medical standpoint he was capable of some range of century work which is far from absolutely no ability to sit stand or walk in utter dependence on crutches now but when you talk about  problematic after the period in question so you don't deny that he's probably totally disabled i mean that's not for me to say in the issue in this case respectfully is whether he became disabled capacity due to pain while sitting and in march th again dr williams had difficulty ambulating but then no assisted devices were noted those were all within a like a month period month and a half period that suggests that he was having difficulty but it didn't necessarily seem to rule out sedentary work of some kind is that right yep that's correct i mean there's nothing i think it's particularly notable is that i've see sedentary work is mostly seated and there's no evidence of any difficulty sitting on the part of mr de mar she never complained of problems sitting and really that dr sabir ski note is the only thing that really mentioned sitting and it only says it was painful same remedy is appropriate secondly i do think it's very telling that the best evidence the government can come up with is evidence what what you know the treatment of itself says that he does use crutches and you know i think that