i believe this case is a simple one and a straightforward one and there are lots of things that we could talk about but i'd like to obvious that respond to the questions but i'd like to talk about what i think is the determin issue and that is the listing that mr evan it was found to equal when he was first determined to be disabled in ninety six before he was terminated in november of ninety eight which is why we're here today  the argument was made that mr afanasy continued to meet listing one point one three and that's the argument that i present today the one thing i'm not clear about is why he was found equal that listening as opposed to meet it because it seems to me the plain language of the listing shows that he had every single thing to see in that list and if the soft tissue injury he had the stage surgical procedures he wasn't restored to major functioning perhaps  requirements and that's the mistake that i think is being made in the commissioner's position here the district court in a commissioner now is the starting that there has to be something more as opposed to just having the staged surgical procedures the staged surgical procedures themselves have to cause disability that's not in the language of the listing and using this court's principles and pit i believe that applies to listing one point one three and someone has a better legal researcher than i and came up with the sunni case and this court said that the party should be prepared to discuss that  does a better job in the sense that it addresses listing one point one three specifically although i think the principles of the picture case still apply so if that is the case then the remaining issue medical issues but this case is simply a matter of reading the language of the listing looking at the facts and say is the language of the listing met there are four cases that i cited three and i'm opening brief and one in my your reply brief whole h this case is this the plaintiff did equal than the listing one point one three originally when he was in an automobile accident and he says staying very severe burns to various parts of his body he underwent about thirteen procedures between august and october of one thousand nine hundred ninety five but by nine hundred ninety six he had shown marked improvement in function what the listing says is that you need to have an impairment a soft tissue injury of an upper or lower extremity and it requires state surgical proceedings which are meant to salvage or restore a major function of the affected part major function is really it's it's a term of art that you can find in the preamble to the listings what major function means is it  other portions of the listings indicate that in order to have loss of major function you need to have a loss of either find a gross motor movements for the upper extremities or inability to and you wait for the lower extremities so it is a very serious severe thing we're talking about salvage or restoration of major function he met this because when he was burned he needed multiple procedures not necessarily on an upper and lower extremity which may be why he didn't meet the listings head on but because of all of his injuries and the limitations he suffered from these injuries the to restore function those ended in one nine hundred ninety five and then according to his own treating physicians it took another year for his burns to all heal and then after that by nine hundred ninety six dr porter his own physician said his burns are all healed he's done absolutely remarkably well he's willing to come off medication another doctor who independently examined him in one nine hundred ninety eight said he denied any significant pain as a result of his burn injuries he had no complaints and no limitations others of his upper extremities now plaintiff argues that he should be found to continue to meet the listing but what he is blurred in this case is for how long should he continued there's there's he doesn't even indicate when this period of disability would end this accident happened in one thousand nine hundred ninety five ten years ago and by nine hundred ninety seven major function had been percent two hundred percent of the day he could walk thirty four to sixty six percent of the day he was motivated and willing to return to the workforce no one disputes that mr adie should did not record is that mr abernathy had sufficient function he's a younger individual to personally perform sedentary work such as a patcher or a ticket seller under the regulations to need a list of impairment what point one three it recognizes the limitations not only from the impairment itself but also from the plaintiff being the claimant being tied up in surgery which is also limits his function and so the purpose of that listing is to be able to compensate someone who's tied up in surgical procedures who might not otherwise be disabled some amputation not only amputation but have to limbs of both upper extremities both lower extremities or one upper one lower but in this case you could have lost the function of one extremity but be tied up in listings have it's almost like a math equation they have to have all requirements net so you need to have the soft tissue injury he had that you need to have require the speed surgical procedures to really store function you have that revise the scar tissue on his right knee in order to give him fuller mobility of the knee but by nine hundred ninety seven he was already able to walk and stand in and do the things that would be necessary for him to do sedentary work therefore it's the hundred ninety seven he major function had been restored and in one nine hundred ninety nine those two procedures they were not part of the state surgical procedures he had already had major function restored so honor it's correct that it's our position that because major function was already restored these additional procedures wouldn't qualify him to to meet or equal the listing that's that's our decision ok thank you for your marked impairment of function means deformity and if i can just briefly refer to page twenty one of my brief here's what happened in one thousand nine hundred nine three months after th then had surgery and quoting for a wide local excision of burn contracture enclosure with local tissue only four months later the examination showed reason to drill scar tissue in the your argument i don't quite understand i want to make sure i do if your claimant takes one year to have their major functions restored because of continuing surgical operations and then after that he is competent to work in the open marketplace does he or she continue to get benefits merely because over a one year period he or she was receiving medical treatment which for bade any type of employment ok the way the agency does this i'm going to the regulation you know i don't care about the agency i want to know is what is your position my position is that when you're looking at it as a continuing disability review you look at the period of time when the agency said the person no longer became disabled what happened prior to the point where the agency said the person is no longer disabled is irrelevant how about after he's already been on disability and i don't understand if a person is disabled for one year due to medical treatment and then subsequently has restoration sufficient to work do the benefits terminate yes they do certainly of but let me just add to that answer that the regulation stated if a person continues to meet a listing that's the end of the discussion the person is presumptively disabled i'm not sure what you just told me is does that include a listing of one point one three ye if he continues to meet let's think if my hypothetical was the person is just just and i cannot work during a one year period when they're having medical treatment and subsequently there are restored sufficient that they can then the person no longer gets benefits unless they otherwise qualify but they can't qualify under one point one three zero if you don't qualify under one point one three that's not the end of the discussion and then go to on to look at their residual functional capacity but if you do meet one point one three you don't go any further the commissioner recognizes that that is presumptively disabling and that's the end of the discussion even if they are completely argument the case just argued will be submitted for decision