all the way back in february two thousand and one he's alleging a disability onset date of september two thousand and one and really the evidence the medical evidence testimony pretty much everything from september two thousand and one through february of two thousand and six shows that he could not work during that time period i think the record is exactly the opposite that's actually what i was going to i think the evidence is much better kind of post two thousand and six for your client i think in that period from two thousand and one to two thousand and six it's just disastrous from from the standpoint of the argument you want to accept well i'll accept that the exit of the funny thing is it's not funny but it's this is the reality he never applied for benefits until july two thousand and ten the earliest he can get benefits is july two thousand and nine the time period between or one in zero six it would affect the amount of his check a slight amount but it's not when you get anything from it well the reason i focused on that time period is of course because the ail jay cited a series i count them as really i think it's five different doctors some of whom were his own treating physicians i think who evaluated him and in that time period each of them came to the conclusion that sure he can't go back and do the work he was doing before but most definitely can do other work and that's why it's just seem like if we're going to review the  decision for substantial evidence why couldn't he rightly point to those five doctors in that time period to conclude that you know what he's not incapable of doing you know all going well i guess i'll spare us from having you to fight about that time period  eight and i can't remain reading september thirtieth two thousand and eight so ultimately after all those years and i disagree with your characterization of the earlier time here because it would kind of went back and forth you try it was really i have two thousand and two through two thousand and six there's a series of five doctors who all consistently say that he can't do the old work but he can do some work and so then i look ok was there something between two thousand and six and two thousand there was nothing program and adapt point is when it seems like they've basically said he could work he went to work he went back to work do we have you know working with accommodations being a meat cutter again and he made from july of two thousand and six and this was a job for a friend where they allowed him to lie down the allowed to go out to his car and take and rest when he couldn't keep work can be on this feed by july two thousand and six he couldn't do it anymore he had to quit he then found another position i believe it was towards the it's of temper of two thousand and six that was a lot where they allowed him to work only three days a week and it was forty eight hours a day he was running a small meat department in a small store and he managed to do that until february of two thousand and seven but by february of two thousand and seven it was hurting him so bad not only couldn't he even do the forty eight hours three days a week his wife was coming in and helping him because he couldn't do even the basic job so i think then from that some there's some evidence in the record that that second job he quit in power as he said the company was going a different direction even when he was working there he was working he was earning less than substantial gain collectivity in the entire job he never made it to the s g a level and he was only working three days a week for eight hours a day and then by february of two thousand and seven that was it he threw in the towel the main evidence then you know you can't you can't evaluate a person who's had a failed back to back surgeries he's in excruciating pain and he was not doing anything he was basically you know he had done exercise for a long time to try to get his strength up to try to be healthy couldn't do that anymore he basically h testimony is very clear about how how limited his activities are and have been since he had to stop working at all which is and then through two thousand and eight he started going to a  court thought in our heart of hearts that your client was not disabled from two thousand and one for reasons largely described by the ail j and found in the medical records what what and so if we were to affirm that the judgment here what remedy do you have to go back to the social security administration say ok forget two thousand and one he's clearly disabled today can you go back to as i say him and make a new read and renew claimant just claim a different year well we can't know we can't if you completely affirm the decision for the entire time period he will never get social security disability ever because because he is insured status expire and september thirtieth of two thousand and eight so is because he couldn't do it anymore if he was to be found disabled beginning in march of two thousand and seven he's never worked since then and he won't qualify on that but if so you can either remain and it for a new determination from the time period where he stopped working at all which is where you could find him disabled as of march of two thousand and seven when you stop working at aldrich is the reason i think you should do the la and find him disabled at least since march of two thousand and seven is his his treating nurse practitioner mr brown basically said that i've been watching this guy for two for i've known him  thousand and one he's basically said he was disabled since two thousand and one and the elgin could have adopted that decision he chose not to and you have substantial evidence of you here so you can't disturb it if this is some evidence that says he's council and by the district court do we have to revise and say well you made it you made you came here and and played for everything and you lost on that we think that maybe you had a better case if you did something different does this court really have the ability to be able to revise the judgment of the social security administration say well two thousand want of roughly two thousand and six two thousand and seven no but after that maybe yes you do and the reason you do is sabled prior to his day last ensured the decision was limited because it was title to only he ruled from the alleged onset date is september two thousand and one through two thousand september thirtieth of two thousand and eight so he could have said exactly what you're telling me you know that you're thinking makes might make sense here is that that first seven you know six years whatever he was not  restrict in terms of what you get going back is not the effect it has no effect on going back in this case because he didn't apply for benefits until two thousand and ten and july two thousand and ten he will not even if you found him disabled in two thousand and seven or two thousand and eight his first month of benefits won't be until july of two thousand and nine but then it would continue forward from there and so yes the air jay could have done that in his decision to l j what they're known to look at the you know they view the file and they say well councilor it looks to me like i can't support a finding a disability through fed february two thousand and seven but march of two thousand and seven seems reasonable are you willing to  manual alleged onset date and quite and for obviously i in this case i would have done that it didn't benefit him anything and if you offered to do that he well i mean you've looked like you played all your cards first september twenty place council where you went to the day and said look in the alternative you can at least find him unable to work as of let's say two thousand and eight i think they actually did that at the hearing but can you point that to us in the record i can't sit down i look for that but but the fact is he in till the does one see my client wasn't sitting there he couldn't make it to the hearing he's on the phone he could not even can struck what your strongest evidence after let's say two thousand and seven or two thousand and seven two thousand and eight that he was just able there are two pieces of evidence one is mr brown's medical source statement from august of two thousand strongest pieces of evidence those are the two strongest pieces of saying well does the examiner two thousand and nine it's all it's actually after the after the time it is it is but it i think that based on the evidence i think it even if  with respect to dr greenwald says that it was rendered many months after the d i y true and nothing in that opinion indicates that it intended to relate back to the relevant period well that the doctor had no he was he wasn't him at that date we can infer that he was disabled earlier but that was not specifically the question asked of doctoring that's correct yeah and i would like to reserve my five seconds for about a list we'll make sure you get a chance would you need to say we want restricted to five seconds court my name is heather griffith here representing the commissioner based on the previous questions i'd like to focus on the time period post two thousand and six during this time period mr chef tried working and he claims he was unable to continue to work in those capacities the problem with that is those jobs were very physically demanding jobs the l j found that he could work at a set terry level which requires much less physical requirements than the jobs he was working at as a meat meat cutter in  the grocery store those jobs required stocking shelves and things like that that required heavier lifting walking and standing than what the elder eventually found that he could do  for lies on the nurse practitioner brown nurse practitioner brown had the his opinion that he said applied to the entire period all the way back to two thousand and one it is clear from looking at the records that mr chef had back surgeries he improved with the time he completed the pain management clinic in two thousand and six after which several doctors upon that he could do work at the medium in the light level at a higher level than what the l g had found nurse brown didn't cite any clinical findings from the relevant period it's not clear he reviewed those medical records and that opinion was retrospective so they all day it was well within his power to ignore or to discount that opinion and find that mr stuff could work all the way up through the day last ensured of september two thousand and  eight about dr green dr greenwald specifically said that he was he didn't provide disability evaluations he didn't provide any functional limitations either he just said the claimant is disabled as unclear when you look at that opinion whether he was basing that off of the claimants on reports or any clinical findings and he didn't relate that opinion back to the period that we're considering here but it's not mean i guess it's what seven eight months after the insured seven months i can't remember the exact dates now but it's not that long writer and so why couldn't i couldn't a reasonable inference be drawn that if he shows up and sees dr green wald in whatever month it was in two thousand and nine that this you know his disabled condition didn't arise the day before he walked in that it must have arisen sometime earlier and why i mean the last of the favorable medical evaluations for for the government's position i think is in two thousand and six at least that's what i remember and then there's this gap right so i mean we know that he did try to work it wasn't like he was just trying to get out of w he wanted to be gainfully employed and he couldn't so why isn't the why can't an inference be drawn that some time prior to when he saw dr greenwald in two thousand and nine but after that point in two thousand and six when we have you know the last  those other medical pinions it's a boy in the purity the condition just get worse well normally in these cases when there's a gap in the medical record of the doctor's opinions we have a two or three year gap here the best case eleven and determined that mr chavez could perform work and the a l j gave great weight to that opinion i mean it's not a perfect solution but it's it's kind of the best we can offer in these cases of a long period of you know disabling limitations if this court were to send this case back for a revisit of this two thousand and six to two thousand and eight period we have all the evidence we have all of the medical evidence from that time period we could call another expert to get another opinion i don't we already have the expert in the expert already said that he could work what's the closest thing we have here to a treating physician during post two thousand and six or anywhere well prior to two thousand dr carl was his primary treating physician through the worker's comp portion of his claim and from two thousand and two to two thousand and six issued seven opinions saying that he could perform work and most of those opinions are saying that he could do you know the meat wrapper position where he would lift up to fifty pounds the fuel center clerk in the fuel cell attendant positions those are probably equivalent to medium to light work in the social security system and they found he could do sedentary work so he tempered the residual fun capacity in the claimant's favor and do we have anything that would look like treating physician after that after dr carl finishes don't want to leading up to it i'm trying to figure out if we can treat nurse round as treating even though not quite treating physician and we we know that people actually treat the person we give greater deference to as distinct from somebody who just reads the far right but we under the regulations in effect in two twenty fifteen when the decision we give greater weight to an examiner or a physician who reads the file more so than a nurse practitioner  i i think i don't know i can't find him when i'm starting to look all through this thing through of greek through my brains i can't even find dr turner but there's been no medical expert in this case that has actually looked at all of the evidence for th he can't sit in that cheer for two hours he testified at last or he's never realists like sit in the chair that's the worst thing for him so i spent most of his time in the zero gravity recliner and so the thought that he could do a sedentary job doesn't make sense because he couldn't sit for extended periods of time and  final result of all these surgeries he'd been through that he'd known about from just for his family practitioner was to get the rules have just changed but they don't affect this case but in the future you know a few years from now you'll be talking about treating nurse practitioners and even treating physicians assistants so that's what we've got and i think the dr greenwald's evidence is is rather compelling and he was in and of disability evaluator and he was thoroughly convinced that he could