looking at things about a week ago before oral argument i sent you the letter that said there's the case and this is what i think it does ok thank you counsel we appreciate your concession that leaves us still with quite a few important issues testified at the hearing dr nathan there's two other doctors involved in this case that are important in my opinion only because the l g relied upon them let me let me ask you a question is this a disability that stems from depression he only inferred that i mean because a lot of people can have to crash and that not be disabled from the depression crack of course the only evidence is the whole the undersigned finds there is a reasonable basis for concluding the claimants depression deteriorated significantly following the death of you're saying that there was substantial evidence to support the march i think was march fifth onset date ok but even accepting back she rationality entered in the interest of economy the undersigned adopts by reference to some of the evidence set forth in the previous decision dated january sixteenth during the hearing the medical experts testified with some certainty that the evidence that he reviewed indicated that the claimants mental impairment equal the severity of listing twelve o four due to the combination of the claimants physical and mental impairments so it appears to me from everything that i've read that he isn't considering the combination of the impairment says and then he says the problem however is pinpointing a specific date as to its onset it's meaning the combination of physical and mental and then he goes through and he tells us exactly why he pinpoints the onset  it's the combination of the two but it's the problem that happened with her was that her husband that tipped her over a nice pics that is the specific date so it seems that he'd evaluated in disgust exactly what you're telling us he didn't evaluat disabling expensive three in four and forty three seconds left with my rebuttal with the court's permission i'd like to reserve that all right thank you thank you he just said oh yes there is plenty of answers to that if you look at the medical evidence relating to the time period relevant to this case which is her alleged onset of disability date in one nine hundred ninety three through march of ninety five when the l j did find her case just a review of that medical evidence indicates that on her alleged onset of disability date she stated she simply had joint pain and she stated that this came up after she quit her last job which is that she left her last job for reasons other than a disabling impairment also on her alleged onset of disability date she went to her physician complaining of this joint pain and with our through which subsequently became to findings indicate that her symptoms didn't result in disabling functional limitations they l j also discussed the treatment notes of treating physician dr morse who during that time period he didn't limit her activities in any way he continually monitor monitored her for follow up conditions and pain medications but he didn't restrict her activities in any way he didn't indicate that she should refrain from doing anything because of this condition he did refer her occurred he couldn't relate back he did not specify that that disability went back to a time period prior to offering some kind of an opinion that he would be on employable in the economy or something long after the relevant time prayed to this case all we discounted by the l j for specific and legitimate reasons this court is faced with the dilemma of determining whether or not the  is you have to you have to look at what he said he was actually basing the finding on and that is important here because really prior to that to that date the claimant was capable of performing some of her past relevant work as well as sedentary w concluded as a matter of fact that she was capable of performing her work for marks nine thousand nine hundred ninety five but then it was the personal problem that pushed her over the edge i mean that seems to disgust and supported by substantial and will call the next case of the nation casino resort vs lera mcgovern bogus incorporated