applicant for social supplemental security income or peered at a hearing as a set on represented attempted to offer medical records that were not accepted by the judge and i application and she would be entitled only from the application date that these records were significant if one were to look at the analytical steps required and it just  case the decision that you have before you the final agency decision indicated that the judge's sale jase judgment that this one back could do her last job as performed that was apartment manager in one thousand nine hundred eighty if you would look at the colloquy that's in the brief and also in the records i tried to illustrate that what she was offering to the judge were medical records that appeared to be for a period of time that extended for some years ending in one nine hundred ninety eight which is when she had the apartment manager job she has the burden of proof as an applicant through the five steps of  process when she arrived at the medical records would be important for steps to whether she has a severe impairment step three whether she meets or equals a listing they would also be pertinent at the final steps four and five in critically important at the staff unnumbered spec where a judge and gauges and what's called a residual functional capacity analysis it's relevant there are going to breach because in order to determine that she can or cannot do certain types of employment certain types of jobs it's important to be able to look at medical history in fact the so security administration itself says in its own documents its own instructions that the so called r f c analysis residual functional capacity analysis should take into account a number of things first of which is medical history she was offering records of medical her medical history for just this specific time period which she was determined by the judge to be capable of performing her past relevant work so i would suggest to you that that would be error of law because one she has the burden of proof she tried to meet her burden of proof what she was offering was pertinent it was relevant we found out even later in the judge's decision just how relevant they were  because the judge found that she was capable of doing her final job her last job quote as performed and so that would require taking into account what was her medical condition at that time she has the burden of proof a all of those elements she attempted to meet those her attempt was rebuffed and so that is our basis were arguing to you that there was an error of due process here there was an error of law point in the briefing is your call is we indicated as well that the judge did not fulfill the obligation to fully and fairly develop the record where there were and a climate like this isn't represented is floundering as the record appeared to reflect then it should have been incumbent on the judge to do a simple step of it of receiving what she was trying to offer to him look at and t even determine whether they appear to be pretty he made a decision that they were important or significant without even looking at content that's clear from the record he looked at postmark from the envelopes that were the containers for the records and determined that they were not relevant but so we contend that he did not fully well have been depending on what was there there's the record to have it on the basis of the evidence that was in the record that he did consider that's efficiently and figure was that it would have required him to under the circumstances i would say yes that is the record that we do have apart from that they refused records there isn't often the record to suggest that a consultation examination may well have been warranted here because of the nature of the l the progression of lupus over time the ups and downs that seem to be reflected in her own medical history that we do have i think that would have been warranted yes i would like to reserve the remainder of my time if i could that's  embrace of a summer cold so i'm going to lean forward and sacrifice my posture but the district court properly your firm the finding of the experiencing any current depression it was in two thousand and one with another doctor who the city disability determination services also confirmed the finding of her treating physician that she had no active you know the lupus was not in an active stage in the least records are you know from two thousand two thousand and one and two thousand to which are and tested whether or not she was an appropriate manager at that time could do that work your honor i say that because in the in the adjudication of disability claims women a l j reaches the point of step understand that and i don't think i don't think the record very your argument that he looked back to see how she well she did the work it varies out that she records say she did do that work for example suppose he says at the end that she could become a convenience store operator why she's never been a convenience store operator there'd be no reason to look back to what happened seventeen years earlier so i don't get the connect between his statement that she used to be  f he says he used to be an apartment operator the particular limitations does not impact upon that work the limitation she has now does not impact upon that work the reason your hon when a judge and a l j makes a determination let's say you're in your example a convenience store manager or clerk or something ok they did in doing that in saying this one got to be a convenience store clerk the judge  based on the determination that in a function by function analysis she would be capable of this and what if you could if the claimant could lift fifty pounds occasionally and twenty five pounds frequently right and so when i say looking back he looks back not necessarily to find the same type of job in the past but to find out whether the jobs that were performed were types of jobs that with indicate to the judge in the  determination process on a function by function basis well if he had if you had said you did this work before well and you should be able to do it now then i can see the records coming in but that's not what the a trade you used to have this is an occupation and by your current disability you can do it now no doctor said they wanted to look at the records there's there's nothing there that ties them in and anyway so i'm having difficulty understanding why why there was error and failing to look at those records because when he makes a determination at step four in looking back to i won't use the phrase here he doesn't have it in the actual findings on record sixteen in the claimant could return to her past relevant work as apartment manager or waitress the evidence indicates a claimant could return to this occupation as formed by the claim it's the very last minute of excerpt forty nine he doesn't carry that over as you are as you were pointing out your honor in the formal findings on the very next page excerpt excerpt fifty but in the discussion in his narrative the page before he does use the phrase as performance that that informs his finding number number eight on extra fifty and in order to understand how she performed that he she was in trying to indicate to him that her medical history should be taken into account in order standing how she performed jobs you might recall from the record that she said she could never keep a job very long time she would feel like she was you know she could just go gangbusters and then she just had no energy and could not form within a short period thereafter so i think that because she had the burden of proof she offered medical records to try to sustain her burden of proof he should have access to the next case on the calendar with mansur versus aster but that's that's been submitted on the br