she had strong family support and she worked for twelve years old then she wanted to part time or before the record shows she was unable to work and all she was asking her hearing  she was probably on antibiotics what is interesting is that nine months after her kidney surgery her treating physician dr burke who treated all her conditions stated that she was having read yet she had five surgeries she had to have or kidney removed shattered uterus removed she had no problem with surgery she had two surgeries under the and the according to the doctors than you are when when there is a conflict and i think the the standard is specific and legitimate so in this case there are numerous conflicts among the opinions for instances as mr tree pointed out dr disabling limitations for a continuous period of twelve months and so when you're when you're looking at claimants who have who may have serious condition but they receive treatment for the condition you don't you don't consider that you know it's like say somebody has had a serious back condition and they're and they have to miss a week of work but after they get that treatment they're able to function after that and you know wonder i will as mr tree pointed out the v a testify that it's six hundred dollars scheduled absence of a year would would be disabling employers when tolerate that but that doesn't mean that any that any individual who receives you know some some serious treatment during the course of the year is then disable that's that's not the standard under social security act they have to show that there impairments cause disabling symptoms for a period of twelve continuous you know and i would point out that that miss prez's own back surgeon was was a sign even if you were limitations from her from her back condition then than other providers that's which is procedures and the evidence shows that she just within weeks of those procedures she was reporting a relief so i you know i think that this is this is a case where it's really important to  consider these opinions in the context of the record as a whole as ale jaded and know that these opinions came in before she received the treatment that helped her condition sorry about the continuing until after she had the you know i don't think the evidence shows that that that these would be that these were disabling conditions she you know as your she pointed point she she went to urgent care one day and with a fever and she was given some medication and then she went back to the emergency room the next day because she still had a fever and the doctors who looked at her at that point said she was discharged in a couple hours she heard labs came back negative she was stable there there weren't issues at that point so you know again looking at the record in the context as a whole you're just not seeing the type of evidence that  it was offered after the hearing in this case i think it's important to look at that opinion and read it when you read that opinion it isn't really assessing limitations it's basically saying that if she does work that causes her pain then her condition will deteriorate but it would be a what the l g was tasked with doing here was was trying to determine what type of work the evidence suggested mr prez could do and in this case he he formulated a residual functional capacity that that was very limiting he found she could do a reduced form of sedentary work and so and in that sense it's consistent with this opinion because the algae is trying to find the record and more importantly when you look at the record as a whole and and look at her functioning after her procedures there there is serious doubt as to whether this presents disabled she she's very limited but but there's various doubt as to whether she