she then filed an appeal with the appeals council which took over a year to get resolved or about a year to get resolved and they said they found no reason to review the decision so we ended up appealing to the district court at that point in time the commission of first comes in and says ok ms dominguez we agree we made a mistake and we need to send it back and they could have done that a long time ago instead misdemeanors has to endure this all this time without any benefit difficult access into the medical system and we understand the only question in this case is whether the district court abused his discretion and sending it back to the commissioner rather than as you requested entering or entering an award so tell us why why this record is so clear that it demands an award as opposed to having the l g do it right which she didn't do the first time well let me first talk about that district court order because you're right your honor that's what we're going to review for an abuse of discretion and the judge judge beatty says in effect there's a problem with with what did the commissioner concedes that yes i will i'm going to send it back so they can do it right it's not to get their jack words but i'm paraphrasing what's wrong with that let's look at what the district court wrote so at page nine of the district court decision it says there may be evidence in the record to which the ideology can point to provide the requisite reason for disregarding the treating physicians opinion and then goes on to state that there are two conflicting medical opinions in the conclusion the district court says that there remained ng so the commissioner can in a quote attempt to provide legally sufficient reasons based on substantial evidence for signing little weight to the opinions of plaintiffs treating physician the district court didn't identify any conflict they didn't tell us why they were sending it back other than we think they should get another shot and that is what is an abuse of discretion what wasn't there there was some medical evidence in the record or evidence in the record that would if believed would would be contra to your client's claim correct the district court does not tell i know what this record didn't but we've looked but we have the record maybe the district court didn't spell it out in great detail but when you look at this record or there's some contrary evidence in the record is the kind of kind of case we'd expect to find or a factor to make decisions in so why is it why should we say that your client gets benefits even if the record doesn't compel that conclusion so i respectfully disagree that there is a conflict in the record and let me tell you why you so the district court says there's a were put on probation some other state and other government can see it's this is you but i didn't see that in the regulations of act it seems that it would be an abuse of discretion or an error not to consider the medical information of a doctor who is authorized to arizona that the regulation yes i did in your briefs when reading context just as the department can't hire him for consultative services so help me used a lot and the commissioners agreed and they're not an acceptable medical source and they grieve in this case so even though the briefing or the citation might not be a fine pinpoint citation because it's an accepted fact handle these conflicts that were identified by the government well the only conflict that they identified is a claim that there is a lack of objective findings the normal straight normal range of motion things to that effect but that does not impact the treating physicians opinion as to the active mr main is pain and there is no dispute that she suffers pain it's well documented here she even has been the subject of a favorable determin  she should exercise so so there certainly seems to be an inconsistency from at least from a lay person's perspective so if i could address that you want to with respect to the use of the legs yes he checked the box they're different at different periods of time which could be explained by medical records but more importantly when we're talking about a remain for a computation of benefits we're looking to see if there's a substantial conflict that needs to be resolved whether she's got difficulty with that leg or not it does not affect the doctor's opinion on how long she can sit stand walk lifting carry and those are the limitations that are consistent with disability it also does not affect the doctor's opinion as to the degree of pain which the vocational expert testified would preclude her from sustaining work is the record clear on the onset date of disability so in my opinion yes but i would have to address that further with you so if we look at the record because now you're outside the opinion of dr levine right right so what i'm saying there has to be you say there should be remain for calculation of benefits i'm saying perhaps there has to be remanded also to determine what the onset date is and if so does your client really is there any real problem which is not remaining for everything so in response that you're on it first that issue was brought up here at the ninth circuit by the commissioner it's really an issue that was waived but i respect that the court will likely go through the record at least to make sure that there is evidence of disability going back so i'm going to point you to the testimony of the vocational expert and that vocational expert basically said that if we accept what the judge found is a residual functional capacity but we add to it that there's only occasional interaction with coworkers and occasional interaction with the public or work is precluded going back to two thousand and six there is a very well documented panic agoraphobia i am afraid to leave the house i have difficulty shopping i have to go with people and so if you're going to search the record because obviously it's not an issue that had been raised we have to look at that and that goes all the way back to two thousand insects but what i guess i'm a little bit unclear is what you want us to do at this point because if i understand correctly she's not getting benefits right she's currently on benefit that's so the only thing left to decide is the onset date right well yes and no ok so we have to decide whether she was disabled as of an earlier date because there's a difference between the type of benefits she's receiving which is supplemental security income and the type of benefits that she's entitled to which would include disability insurance benefits so the amounts are different the access to medical providers is also different once covered under medicaid or access in arizona and the other one is covered through medicare and it makes a big difference to these individuals as to who they could say what kind of medications are going to be question before this court is whether the district court abused its discretion in fashioning the remedy that it did the district court remained in this case for further proceedings because there was evidence to which the l g could point to to provide the requisite means for disregarding his opinion and that the ael jay was in a better position than the court to perform this task and the district court's decision to remain for the proceedings instead of calculation of benefits was  this court is not required to create i know we're not required to care can we take it in stride theoretically the court can except for the fact that there are the court has to first determine whether the and actual issues have been resolved or remain for an award of benefits is appropriate so is there conflict in evidence and all essential factual issues have been resolved here well there are conflicts in the record your honour's there are conflicts between the medical opinions in this case there are conflicts between ms dominga says own statements to her doctors and because of that i think tricolor instructs that when there are these kinds of conflicts the case should be remitted to resolve those conflicts are their conflicts if we credit talked about this testimony is true there are conflicts within his own treatment records and with the opinions of the other doctors for instance  that our position is that you should not pay attention to his opinion however i think it's fair to look at her own statements to dr preved during that time that's a separate issue i just want to find out what you know i don't mean to take you off track  's was totally disabled would you say that the l j could not consider that evidence i would yes your honor and so even though he meets with the medical except of all medical source regulation wait does it go to the way they can go to the way yes because he's he's on probation in a different state right right it does go to the weight and i think that in the past the commissioner has actually asked to volunt were answering other question with jack i think i was talking about how dr bought because opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment notes for instance i think is the commission pointed out in her brief the truth the treatment notes dated the same day as those opinions really showed almost no objective findings to support his opinion of extreme limitations  instance on april ninth dr baka found that she had no neurological deficits she had full range of joint motion she had good muscle tone and no edema later on in october of twenty baka found the same normal findings and then he advised her to exercise which is our position that it's pretty inconsistent with an opinion of such extreme limitation to then go ask her to testimony as credible as a matter of law so are you suggesting that you could we would have the authority to credit as true before identifying conflicts before considering whether there are conflicts in the record i'm not sure i understand your question i understood from our president that first we have to determine whether there are conflicts in the record only if there are no conflicts can we then go forward to credit testimony is true but i thought you that the first question is did the l j provide legally sufficient reasons for you can see that and we concede that he didn't we asked this court to affirm the district court judge you just question is the one that i was hoping to get some guidance on which is that as that you didn't give sufficient reasons is this a case where we should credit as true or as if it is should we not because there are conflicts it's our position that you should not create it is true because there are conflicts but beyond those conflicts are also fact more issues that need to be resolved a particularly the onset date your honor there is a prior application that was filed in two thousand and eight it could theoretically be reopened a fact finder needs to look at that and what and see whether or not that's the case whether or not should be opened there is also a subsequent favorable decision that was given to ms domingo's but in that favorable decision  consider that was a part of the district court's record this was not part of the district court so it's not really before us corrado it's not the o j considerate on remand they could consider at all because it would be on an open record right right i the court remains the case for further proceedings the whole entire case goes back for de novo review and so the issue will be whether or not what her alleged onset date was whether that par application could be reopened at what point  there at the onset date is and it will be a decision through the date of the find of the of the later finding that she became disabled in june of two thousand and eleven so there's this time period that needs to be addressed by the court or by the l j and the only way for that to happen is for the court to remain and otherwise the court is left in the position of trying to figure out what the onset date is itself which i don't think is the purview of the court a standard different for something going to benefits as opposed to disability benefits well disability insurance benefits are only available to a claimant who is fully insured for those benefits i understand that i mean is that is a legal standard determine if a person is disabled different no so is it so it basically is that s s i determination binding on the l j yes yes it will be it will be binding though really just becomes whether or not she filed an application within the time limit that would allow her to get disability benefits that's correct and her dentist and i thought the subsequent opinion was with a specific disability onset date so that wouldn't that wouldn't cover necessarily the timeframe before this is a l j well this is the that's right your honor the finding of that subsequent jail was that she was dissed she became disabled four months after the first  decision so there's that four month gap and the new l j will look at the case for the same mail to whoever gets the case back will look at the case through the date of that june eleventh onset thank you thank you your hon opinion as to what misdemeanors can do he says she can sit for less than three hours stand a walk less than two hours you can exercise for thirty minutes based on the restrictions that the treating physician assessed all of her daily activities can be performed within the restrictions the doctor assess and there is no conflict and they should not get another chance to as the district court says attempt to provide legally sufficient reasons the district court should have said these they are this is what we're doing this is why we're doing it that's what we are you for an abuse of discretion