benefits which was denied by the commissioner that final decisions before the court standard review is the substantial evidence standard which the court has addressed in the  but i would like to know that there is something that seems to be suddenly falling out of the equation in the review and that is and i'll quote from the team mobile versus city of roswell case supreme court rule by employing the term substantial evidence congress has invoked among other things reviewing courts recognition that the order of or the orderly functioning of the process of substantial evidence review be clearly disclosed in the courts cannot exercise their duty of substantial evidence review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under  and it brings back my memories of tutoring russian history students and almost forty years ago that it's not what you say but how well you support and that's one of the issues lost in the review process went on and something that the commissioner's office when they're arguing categorical rules seems to fail to know they are the ones applying the categorical rules by not showing th four specifically filling to address significant evidence developed after the state agency physicians assessed the light the listing and whether the ale or the most revoir judge provided a flawed assessment of her credibility as it relates again to the development of evidence after the state agency physicians in that timing argument that you're offering counsel the operative date for you is april t been evaluated by a medical practitioner to determine what impact this has on the elements of the listing or on whether or not her condition had improved as the administrative law said obviously both sides have highlighted the facts support of their cases but the truth of the matter is whether or not somebody is comfortable believing that it ministry of law judge can adequately review this medical evidence and determine what impact it has and whether or not the claimant needs a listing and whether it undermines her credibility without having any kind of medical opinion whatsoever we're talking about true years worth of medical treatment from the gate the last state agency review took place until the judge's decision now this co said that unable jamie not substitute their judgment for physicians without relying on other medical evidence of record well if you relied on this evidence he's tripling what it means because i don't know how you can look at an m r i result knowing that there is no root compression without somehow coming to terms whether or to the idea of whether this is indeed causing the problems the reported pain she's expressing whether it meets the listing unless or interpret it and this court has repeatedly and in fact merino an atkins or the two most recent cases where they've talked about that if the state agencies opinion is undermined and they all j is supposed to actually obtain medical opinions to address the issue they're not allowed to play doctor in this case here we determine duty then is to rebut that presumption and in this case there's so much evidence sitting here where is there rebutted presumption that the listing was met considering all of this evidence that was really never properly evaluated or taken into consideration  with regard to listing this this is no different than the court's interpretation and mimic where the court all want the only difference is in mimic the judge actually outline the elements of listing one dollar but in this case the judge just said simply i've considered it and found that it doesn't apply there is no effort to assess the record no effort evidence to or no effort to point to the evidence and show how all the specific elements are met there's just a very as far as the credibility again  we have a problem in fact that the shoes are reporting that she had left nerve damage foot drop that she needed to lie down and elevate her legs to relieve pressure on her spine the vocational experts testimony had record page one hundred and twenty one noted that such a limitation would preclude competitive work yet she's repeatedly noted as having an improvement in her medical condition despite the fact that shortly before the hearing she's again receiving steroids injections in their low back due to her pain the ultimate question of rounders is whether the vast amount of additional evidence developed after the case merited some review by  medical expert and it did it just was not within the purview of the administrative law judge to assess that evidence and determine what impact that had either on the listing or his determination often listen cases are the rare exception because there is a presumption of disability the evidence is so clear that we skip the entire rest of the analysis and say that this person is for something we disabled at step three and here that just a lot of things were true it just that the emphasis is that it's a very high standard so that you're not going on to look at the rest of the evident don't know why it's a high standard it's just what do you do  what we have and i think the eldest decision emphasizes this is we have an individual who had chronic back pain and that back pain dated back to two thousand and nine and she had two flare ups and the l j credited both of the flare ups and the common for her for her age range and then you see significant improvement right after with treatment at the chiropractor with physical therapy with medication so in january she's reporting multiple troubling snow she's saying she feels much better and there's all these activities throughout two thousand and fifteen then that show you know she's doing outside she's doing yard work she's taking care of her family she's doing household chores so we see improvement and then she surgery and then the follow up three weeks later she's reporting a ninety percent improvement and her symptoms and so the l j is that this is this isn't that she met the listing for a twelve month j largely credited what she said and if you look at the residual functional capacity the l j limited her to sedentary work which was more than any medical opinion in the record and he gave credited her complaints that she could only stand for fifteen minutes at a time he included the sit stand option and he even gave her the use of the cane that she said that she needed for long distances or over rough terrain so this really tracks with with what she was saying she needed she has the surgery and she reports immediate and significant improvement she has a little bit of pain at the end of september she doesn't under her m r i which shows that the discrimination that had caused the nerve root compression in june fourteen after this we also have an opinion from her doctor mrs kane the nurse in january th teen and her doctor this is evidence that she supplied said she could lift up to twenty five pounds and she needed also seems to lower the burden and that she has not correctly stated the criteria there's an emphasis on the nerve root compression and that she had pain but the listing requires much more than that which we've laid out in our brief you limitation in the range of motion and motor along us accompanied by sensory and reflex loss and then also the straight leg raising so the positive straight like raising ties so there are a number of things that she needs to show and she has made no effort to point criteria for at least a twelve month period and she has not met that burden here finally with regards to the subject of symptom analysis again the l g largely credited her complaints she says her argument seemed to partially which were consistent with the regulatory factor as you described the discrepancies between her complaints and the medical record that her course of treatment didn't show significant improvement this is her own reports this isn't something that i was reading into the repeated reports of how she is forty percent fifty percent better with medication and with physical therapy and finally that her activities really were with her allegations that she met a listing for disability guaranteed i would to respect the cultural having to require surgery i think is more than a floor as far as this goes if we are going to allow  claimants to have to refile claims because they have a worsening condition during the pendency the long