thickened dark hue and that meant the cardiac listings back in two thousand and nine and in late two thousand and twelve the commissioner and i want to call them the commissioner for the purposes of of simpleness but there's not currently a commissioner or an acting commissioner it suspect you guys actually know about that in any case the in two thousand and twelve the commissioner decided that oh we're going to check in because we think this narrow conditions going to have gotten better so they did that and they concluded that there by because she no longer met that specific listing regarding that brawny edema that she was no longer disabled and so it is and what's related to ability to work but ind it alternately at you know when you consider all the impairments in combination severe or non severe do they form the residual functional capacity that is accurate and and matches up to her of a you know alleged ability to work and it is for these position that she did that the they did not properly meet the burden at these steps and in general didn't meet the burden to show that agree when you read the administrative law judge opinion you see over and over again back to the list you know there's not brawny edema it's not open swelling but it was a different kind of swelling that she was dealing with it was other impairment they had gone forth back and forth comparing and if you don't do that that is grounds for email and as a matter of law in this case you just compare that december two thousand and twelve consultative examiner with the prior condition the backgrounds of motion is significantly decreased the neck range of motion and this is sensed the prior time the nec range of motion significantly decreased there was this new hip related range of motion the significantly to decrease at  you know measured by measurement measured by measured the b m i this is a five foot four roughly three hundred lb woman but it's gone really high as well and then there are by the way i'm she could sit for an unlimited period of time but now she's got restrictions on sitting in late march after they told her she wasn't disabled she's a trooper she's a she's a who she went back to work she tr she had swelling before she went back to work in her legs but she went back to work anyway and then she checked in and in may two thousand and thirteen she you know went to her doctor and during that time period in some medical records the i i can't decipher them your honor maybe you guys have better eyes than i do but the l j says that what it said in those records was that she could only had to elevate her legs twenty minutes every four hours  i couldn't decipher that from there which to me is a problem of substantial evidence but let's suppose the l j were right about that then that would have been in the cop needed to be introduced in the context of she was trying to work that she was still trying to work so to do it more than that would have interfered with her workplace situation that would be something she could have taken to her employer and said hey this is what i'm supposed to do of course that job  legs were swollen they were continually a problem she lost her job she lost her health insurance at that time she ended up started using a wheeled walker but the l j makes a big deal out of the fact that she didn't formally have a prescription for that real  things went downhill such that she needed the wheel walker she didn't have insurance but he was doing that for more than a year before the hearing will rely on this we have walker walking around and things have gone downhill the second not disabled it doesn't make sense to simply do that but that's almost all the details it does and so some entire lines of evidence that are going to include the fact that for other for various purposes she was doing a  cardiac test ok thirty five minute mile she didn't do a mile but that's the speed thirty five minute mile that's a really slow walk she could not do that one time for three for more than three minutes so i had to stop and according to the commissioner she could do that you know six six of eight hours a  day and then you know another line of evidence that wasn't acknowledges that she tried to work she went back and it did not work out instead the l j tries to use that against her another line of evidence dr gam li america trued on behalf of the commissioner to l j met the burden to show that for aziz disability had ended if you look at the two thousand and nine comparison point decision the only basis for that decision was that her impairments met listing four point one one which as mr rodman indicated is for bronnie edema there's no question in this case as a february twenty third teen when she was found to be no longer disabled that the brawny a d m a was no longer there if these did not meet the listings requirements so when you're dealing with a disability succession case the first couple steps of the evaluation process are basically looking at was the basis for the old decision still in effect at the time of the review and clearly no there's no argument and there's no evidence that her still math listing four point one one so that's why the l j focused on that issue at the beginning because that's the requirement of this of the sequential about and process used in these disability sation cases then the l j went on to consider the subsequent steps which sort of resemble what you would see in an ordinary disability case and what's at issue here are steps evan and eight which correspond normally to steps four and frizzy able to do her past relevant work or was she able to successfully adjust to other work in the national economy and substantial evidence supports the g s decision at both step seven and step eight and therefore the district court's judgment should be affirmed now dealing with for these ability to do her past relevant work the evidence that and the argument that raised in the district court was that the ale j had erred and evaluating the opinion of the counsel to examiner but the problem with this argument as a commissioner in the district  center instead dr wrangle provided medical evidence range of motion strength testing things like that and that medical evidence was then analyzed by the agency's medical consultants well both of the agencies medical consultants looked at dr wrangles report and said it was consistent with an r f c for light work so the only doctors that provided an opinion about for z's ability to work both agreed with the a that she could do like work dr ringle provided medical evidence but all of the extrapolations about what dr wrinkles report means are coming from plaintiff and her attorney they're not coming from dr wrangle and the actual medical experts who looked at dr wriggles report said it was consistent with dale chayes fine now even if you don't think that's the case and you think that f unable to do her past relevant work to l j made an alternative finding at step eight which we would normally think of as step five of the sequential valuation process the ability to do other work the vocational needed to do use a walker needed to sit for six hours per day and could only lift ten pounds she could still do a variety of sudden terry jobs in the national economy so the only argument that the claimant that for the raised in the district court is flawed and it also does not account for they all case of finding at step five now on appeal perhaps recognizing some of the shortcomings of the arguments that she raised in the district where she tries to identify new evidence or new arguments about errors in the male g s decision but as this court has has often found you know raising it for the first time on appeal is too late these types of arguments need to be made in the district court not in the appellate court but even if you look at the evidence and the arguments that they're identifying for the first time on appeal there's very significant problems with those are some mr rodman for example referenced a treadmill test well there's a couple problems with this argument the first is that the treadmill test evidence was not before the administrative law judge this evidence was submitted to the appeals counsel and so you can't take the administrative law judge to task for failing to consider evidence that wasn't in the record at the time of the decision this evidence although it's dated before the  complete a treadmill test on an incline is the same thing as the inability to walk at all obviously a ten degree incline on a treadmill is going to be more challenging than ordinary conditions and moreover the treadmill test is not designed to test your ability to walk or test your functional capacity at work what they're really trying to do is get your heart moving so they can get a better image of the heart and what happened if you look at the actual description of the test when she said she wasn't unable to do the treadmill test they used the chemical substitute that basically it's a medication that ups the heart rate it simulates the effect of a treadmill and then they were able to get images of the heart in the actual report says that her heart was in fine condition and they didn't find any abnormalities so there was a report that she was unable to complete the treadmill test but that doesn't mean that she's unable to walk and ultimately once they did the alternative version of the test it showed that there were no heart parents so to sum it up there is substantial evidence that her disability ended it's unquestioned that the original basis for the determination was no longer there she no longer met listing for point one one and therefore it was reasonable to determine that her disability had ended now she's pointing to additional impairments that either allegedly worsened or develop even after the day that she was found to be no longer disabled but the problem with those arguments is that the only two doctors who of sorts to no disability that is improper i e if you wanted to i could brief you in multiple circuits have addressed something along that lines and you know briefing you want something like that wouldn't be a new argument it just flushes out something further so examination and assessment of frizzy the claimant didn't provide a statement as the functionality well if you look at that report there was a section specifically title functional limitations and it is true that the the s s a exam a doctor type in introduces that functional limitation section with the language the claim circular or something or some such but the s s a is a powerful organization and it's you know doctors generally do what they wanted to if that language could make the functional i don't think that that it is logical is that it's a logical bridge problem as it is the leaning on the non examining consultants and exclusively to to do you know to have them supersede the actual examiner who the s s a hired and then just as an add on the the logical bridge problem is exemplified by is one of the co commissioner acknowledges implicitly you only get atrophy if you don't walk for more than like three to five minutes a day at total frizzy never alleges that so in some of the l j opinion doesn't really make sense