there was actual rehabilitation services that the claimant participated in not a worker's compensation situation but one where after  she m sustained her stroke she actually engaged in this for self as a fifty year old woman with a thirty two year your work history that suffers a stroke then two years later suffers a heart condition that requires an angioplasty in the placement you stance and then a year later requires yet another and your grant after the stroke she participated in a short rehabilitation services short hospital rehabilitation services and they did ten day work evaluation and this wasn't just any time they were the valuation they actually placed her back in her employer workplace and sharp we had services came in and observed her ten consecutive days and at the end of those ten days they found that as a result of her impairments she was not competitively y volunteer work to get her back up to speed so a year later she does in fact reemployed sharp rehab and goes through a volunteer program so yes the first one was close in time to the stroke but the second rehab program was a year later she once again they found that she wasn't competitively employable but she doesn't give up she goes back to shark rehab get a third time and has them a job where she can work at home work at her own pace and even at that she finds that she can't keep up with the work she can't produce enough work to make herself of value to that employer by professionals who do this for a living for the purpose of getting people back to work so the fact that it was unoccupied doctor isn't a legitimate reason to dismiss the value of the  consultative doctor the social security center to be examined her one time and one of the other doctors was a neurologist that she went to on her own for treatment for post what she can do based on her medical records but unfortunately objective medical records are not directly transferable to the ability to do work in other words you can't look at the next train go over from this x ray i can tell she can only stand for hours but isn't that ultimately the decision of the administrative law judge in a case like this if i recall correctly of those three physicians none of the physicians including her thought that she was disabled my misquoting that i don't want to but i thought my impression was that there was no medical doctor who sustained a finding of disability and none of them actually said she was disabled but dr laska opinion does not directly contradict the vocational rehabilitation services opinion dr lasker was concerned because she had reduced mobility in her dominant hand her ri she's physically incapable of doing her work they saw her there for ten day work study she was doing work but she wasn't doing it at a competitive level she was too slow she was making too many mistakes she just was not up true but it's not as if he was saying that she could go back to work he's saying that she does go back to work she's going to be at a competitive disadvantage now additionally the judge rejected it because it was based on largely on a short period of time and in a remote period of time but as i pointed out earlier the first one was shortly after the stroke but it certainly wasn't a short period of time it was ten days the next twenty year later was a three month work program so that clearly wasn't a short period of time either it wasn't that remote and the remoteness really has nothing to do with it if the residuals continue and the residuals do continue when was the first ten day observation was that i have something in my house about four months was that right i was after the stroke  so finally on the judge's reasons for rejecting this just aren't legitimate reason this is clearly something that social security feels that the judge is supposed to consider when he does his residual functional passage assessment it's written into their social security ruling ninety six dash  consequence he then found that she was capable of not just work that he thought that she was capable of going back to the actual work that the vocational rehabilitation specialists say that she couldn't do and like to reserve anything  we have computing expert opinions regarding the claim its ability to work history is contention that the a l j didn't properly consider  recognised are not entitled to any special weight the a l j did however evaluate these opinions and correctly concluded that the sharp expert's opinion was contradicted by the opinions of separate medical doctors about like claim it could do i would also point out something which i did not address in my brief which was the basis for the opinion from shore which was based on the claim its ability to do what appears to me to have been her former mail room job where is in fact the opinion evidence that the algerian relied upon here which was offered by the vocational expert at the was for residual functional capacity so there's no conflict there when what and when had she done that for she had done that work as recently as one hundred eighty seven which fell within the fifteen year guideline let's say for finding that that was past relevant work so we would submit that the l g did properly consider the competing opinion offered a legitimate reason for rejecting it that was supported by substantial evidence and adopted the second point i would like to address is the l d s findings respecting the claimant credibility  evaluated the case in a manner consistent with this court's holding in thomas the work conflicts between what the claimant says she can do and between what the medical evidence suggests she could get there was also evidence that the claimant had in fact recovered from her nine hundred ninety four stroke within a relatively short period of time some of the symptoms that she alleged has consequences that stroke could result before she completed the vocational rehab at the hospital the medical expert testifying at the hearing stated that in fact her heart condition was not that bad and he discussed at great length what t four months and when in relationship to that where the doctor's examinations quite a bit after or well i believe d from the initial stroke and then mitchell and that ten day observation if she had improved a lot is that what the doctors were finding or when when why sarah examination and relationship deteriorated unfortunately and a subsequent change in the claims condition after the date last insured is not really relevant to the trees finding here so we would submit finally that the l g s decision was your honour's in terms of that work evaluations the second of the to work the guy away sions which was three months in length which occurred between november of ninety four and february of ninety five the second evaluation which led to the same conclusion that she wasn't competitively employable was an evaluation of a general clerical job her job as an office slash auction clerk was in fact that a general clerical job in fact a l j in the locational witness went back and forth because they had trouble with you know what is an auction clerk and the he explained to the l j that it basically is a clerical job of work so that was clearly beyond her tolerance but even at three hours a day she still wasn't able to sustain the work at a competitive level and finally i do want to clarify the comment made about the medical experts testimony and in the stroke medical expert did testify about the heart condition but she never testified that the stroke was not a significant stroke and there's no evidence in the record that there wasn't a significant stroke