march rolfing on behalf of albert circus ordinarily when the court reviews a social security determination we ask the question whether the decision and the factual findings fall within the boundaries a possible outcome that's reasonable that a reasonable person would accept that's the sentence for inquiry but on the sentence six inquiry when there's new material evidence that's been presented to the federal court for the first time that the agency has not yet had a chance to review this court's cases state that the question becomes is it possible that the agency would change their mind on remand and that's been the law since when right was decided  almost thirty years ago and it's still the law of the circuit no and bang court has reversed it and so when we look at the last bit of evidence in this record mr sarkozy on a subsequent application after this case was pending in federal court refiled and alleged to disability of may one two thousand and seven consistent with his prior presentation and the a state agency determined that the established onset date was july twenty fourth two thousand and ten one day after the l g decision and the state agency explains it in the pill distributed in opposition by the government the explanation of why the established onset date is different than the alleged onset date is because  the day after the l j decision now it's clear from the record that mr sarkis got worse between two thousand and seven and two thousand and twelve but the question is whether he was traveling down from the to hong pass into the great by dropping three thousand feet in ten miles or whether he's dropping three thousand feet to sea level driving from nebraska to louisiana a gradual decline that is almost imperceptible and that's the facts of the case that we have here the state agency did not gratuitously give away two years of onset to mr sarkis because he's a nice guy th did it because the evidence actually supported the onset date and jurisdictionally the state agency could only roll back to the day after the ailed a decision that was then pending in federal court the agency what is the new evidence material in your view twenty twelve and in that case in that one that never examination the constipated examiner on the subsequent application found motor strength of four five to five and three five and  fifteen pounds of force in the right hand some of those findings are better and some of them many of them are worse than the findings of the doctor in dr mayson twenty ten  mays finds trace motor strength in the triceps the ability to push down or push away one pass on the left three five wrist extension you don't need to go through right that much detail so it's dr fon as opinion that's the new evidence that in your view would support sentence six is there ok so three three doctors recur yes yes three doc ok yes and the reason why ability whatever it is and but you didn't examine them in two thousand and ten or two thousand and nine how how is that useful or how how does that fit the category of material evidence it's clearly new it might be cumulative but it's right you ok well just cumulative count in this context if there are two doctors that say x and one that says why in the agency on a downward slide and so when we trace that line that's a given in this case i mean isn't it that he was on a downward slide i don't think anyone has question that that was the general trajectory which is why there's a later disability finding that if you say the issue is you know where do you cross that that threshold and and it's hard for me to see how evidence the opinion of the state agency in finding disability they they in the exercise of agency discretion said that this evidence in two thousand and twelve casts a shadow back in time the state agency decided that the evidence cast that long of a shadow and there isn't the only inference from the clear statement of why the established onset date the e o d different from the alleged onset date the a o d finding of no grip strength in the right hand by dr maze that was confirmed by a very poor grip strength in the right hand by treating primary care physician  three letters in re as i've forgotten same he said he thought that that was inconsistent but the state agency when they get the further data points down the line in they're able to draw that line rhonda because when we just have two or three data points we don't have the cluster of data that we get once we put the data the two thousand and twelve data points into the picture and the twenty twelve data points inform the agency that that there is in fact a significant reason why to believe and to legally find that the onset they at least  did it but they have agency could not make that finding them ask questions and the magistrate judge found in the order that a remained was not warranted because the s s a subsequent decision warding benefits was based on a change in condition and was not seriously instant case really that they were dealing with two sort of situations which which i'm having trouble understanding how they relate one to another such that remit is warranted so i'm asking this circuit the sixth circuit in the fourth circuit have this continuing presumption of non disability and so the claimant has the obligation overcome that continuing presumption the agency applies that contending presumption so the only way that the agency could find disability at all is to is to find a change in circumstances and so in the burton case for instance there's a finding of a change of age category change of evidence chang and the city agency in this case found that the additional data points provided the basis upon which to to find disability otherwise they would be bound by the l g s prior assessment i'd also like to address mr sarkozy has subjective complaints of pain even of which were discredited which were which were discredited  correct correct and so the question is whether the those reasons amount to clear and convincing reasons and so the best evidence that mr sarkis is not as impaired as as he claimed he was is is the opinions of dr mays in the record three zero one dr mays found trace strength in the in the triceps decrease wrist extension strength decreased finger abduction strength no discernible grip strength on the hand and nails a for instance said that no discernible grip strength on the right hand well that must have been fain but dr maizes is not a physician that is unfamiliar with the disability process she conducts these constipated examinations at the request of the state agency and if she thought that it was feigned she would have said so in for the algae to speculate against medical good morning your honor elizabeth fear for the acting commissioner of social security carolyn colvin regarding the second application for benefits there is a clear there's a lot of evidence in the record that the claimants condition deteriorated and the most important is that claim it himself said that the changes occurred around february two thousand and twelve that's on the the first page of the second page of the dr vigeland all as state agency review of second application and several times within that report dr begala says that the condition has changed and if you compare the evidence before l j and the evidence in that second application it is it does show a clear deterioration in the condition you do have strength findings that are arguably similar throughout but during the time that the l j reviewed the claim was independent in his daily activities no doctor said he needed a cane to move the only doctor who mentioned atrophy was dr mays and she said that claimant had noticed atrophy in one of his like skin by the time you get to the second application both doctors amos and d greer of a sauna noted significant ads for a fee both of them noted the claimant needed to use a cane and the claim reported that by that time his daughter had moved in with him and was taking care of his activities that he had previously done himself so that's clear deterioration and what the lewin brewton stand for in this court is whether or not the two applications can be reconciled on the evidence that is before the court here it is clearly reconciled will the agency already perform that question on the issue whether the decisions can be reconciled what is the standard of review under which we're supposed to look at the agency's decision that they can be reconciled so the cowhorse and so on i believe that standard would be what set forth in prudent taylor is the evidence that comes into the record after the j s decision would have would have a real possibility of affecting what the l j did and here when you look at that evidence you can see that it does show a clear deterioration not the least of which is claimants admission that his condition deteriorated we do know this is a progressive condition but if you look at the evidence that's before l j and the evidence that he relied on his findings are reasonable thank you so if if the court doesn't have any further questions we say that the the applications are reconcilable the l g s decision in this case is supported by substantial evidence not the least of which is dr mays and dr bug the l j properly rejected the treating physician and the record well i believe the two most important things are the facts that despite claiming that he really had no use of his hands clean it was doing several activities that do involve use of the hands driving playing cards smoking cigarettes doing helping activities using the computer and that's all in his testimony around pages seventy one and seventy two and then the fact that he admitted he was looking for an office job which is what the l g found he could perform those are the two most important things the l d also noted gaps in treatment that belied claimants allegations of severe severely debilitating conditions we know he has a condition that affects his ability to work and for a young man the palsy there there's no cure there's no there's nothing he can take to restore his strength there's nothing he can take to restore his ability to to withstand pressure there's no medication except pain medication and his complaints aren't that he has pain his complaints are that he has dysfunction in the medication treatment is available doesn't address the dysfunction and he isn't obligated to either become page of a decision but about his daily activities including things that required the use of both hands in a significant way well one of them is reading a book well ther some puter there's doing it's laundry there's you know all kinds of other activities that are listed that require the use of both hands and arms cleaning shopping playing  cards driving so forth and so on all of those things he admitted to and all of those things dr joshua assumed in the expression of her opinions that he was limited to less than sedentary work and none of those activities require any type of sustained exertion whether sitting standing or walking or using his hands it's not sustained the proposition that you must always have your both hands  at ten and two to drive i might get arrested on the way back to my office today i don't the fact the proposition that you can only play cards with two hands well i've played cards in vegas and they slap you down if you touch the cards of both hands they don't want you to touch your cards of both hands and that's why in the immigration context this court has long held that the that the a l j or the i j in that context has an obligation when they perceive a conflict in the record between the testimony and other evidence to ask the claimant for an explanation and consider that explanation but the l j so far that's not a requirement in this so far and i would urge we did in our brief we urge the court to adopt that role because otherwise we say well you drove your car how do you drive your car with one hand it's a very simple question asked well i it it's an automatic i drive with my left hand i park and i shift in and out of park in reverse and drive by leaning up with my left hand it's if if that was the the testimony then that would explain how a person could drive with his right hand in addition mr sarkis doesn't have his wrist strength and finger strength problems but that doesn't mean he can't hang the his hand on the steering wheel as a counterbalance so that to not have not require an explanation and to make a decision based on substantial speculation just really it counsels in favor of adopting the