think your honor may please the court i would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal ok this pod during the relevant period in this case was between fifty eight to six obesity chronic stress obstructive pulmonary disease obstructive sleep apnea cardiac impairments she needed a walker by september of two thousand and fourteen and was on oxygen chronically due to her age if she cannot perform her past relevant work she is disabled under the social security grid rules she cannot go on her feet six to eight hours according to the  vocational expert she cannot perform her past relevant work and therefore would be disabled a l j in this case relied on the opinions from state agency physicians dr staley and dr verjee to determine that miss todd   from her onset date of may thirty one two thousand and thirteen but they both felt that her condition would improve by may of two thousand and fourteen therefore without improvement interviewed in her condition in the future then she would they felt like in the future she would improve that administrative law judge erred in a significant way because the administrative law judge never realized that the doctors that she gave significant weight to said that she was currently disabled but it would be only in the future they heard projected that her condition would improve in fact their record demonstrates that although she had some temporary improvement from a pm our symptoms when she was on a high dose as on an tylenol four with coding accompanied with a marked restriction in a weight bearing activity that her condition markedly declined in all other areas significant because when her pm our was under control with the high doses of pratt is on a tylenol for she still had to restrict her weight bearing in a very market way in order to  maintain her pain control now that's significant because when she restricted her weight bearing it meant she couldn't be on her feet in fact the records demonstrate that she could only be on her feet for up to about fifteen minutes and  that no more than two hours in any day that would put her at the sedentary level and according to the vocational expert would mean that she was not able to perform any of her past relevant work and with that finding she would be conclusively determined to be disabled under social security's grid rules the matter doesn't need to be reminded for a further fact development because the vocational expert also testified at the hearing that because she cannot perform her past relevant work that the grid rules would mandate a finding of her being disabled if she can't perform or pass relevant work then the grid rules would not be appli but we think the evidence conclusively determines that she cannot perform or pass on the work because she can't be on her feet for six out of eight hours day in and day out which is something that is required  r her to be able to do or past relevant work and which is the the objective evidence is very strong in this case now i think an important part of this case has to do with some significant errors that the judge made in addition to not realizing the two to state agency doctors that she relied upon that were saying that she that miss todd was disabled when they gave the opinion but that she would improve and later the judge also in her decision stated that she was discounting both missed bus filled and miss todd because in the record it showed on january of two thousand and fifteen this fuss filled reported in her chart no it's that miss todd was feeling well and had good energy she cited to fifteen page can which is page five hundred in the record five hundred on the record doesn't show that at all in fact it shows just the opposite if you look at  she writes down symptoms that are present and symptoms that are not present regarding feeling well and good energy that was under the heading not present and so feeling well and good energy were not present not present that was a significant error that they all jane made because she relied upon this both to reject mistrust and to reject miss todd's credibility what is significant about this that there's said that was not present only three of twenty one dollars times did she say it was present in the one example the a l j gave she got it wrong it was one of the times when it was not present so in the  airs they're not entitled to the same deferential that an l j would be entitled to if they don't care that the standard becomes assistant stated by this court and stay out of that unless the court can confidently conclude that no other being inconsistent with her report oh yes for the reasons that she's not able to derive but the last of those convictions was in two thousand and four several years for the onset date so so her those rod are inconsistent with what she said about driving honors i did want you if i could refer to the court where it does it say that the that the state agency did find her currently disabled but in the future on the record at capacity they then tell you in that report and this is standard in the state agencies forms went what period of time this is for and so when they said that she was able to do light work the period of time in this usually it says from mine said davis what they would typically say in this case both of them said that the period of time for the r f c they gave was twelve months after onset may thirty two thousand and fourteen this fact is driven home in the in the letter that the state agency sent to miss todd at one hundred and thirty one where it says begin quote we realize that you are presently unable to work but your condition is not expected to prevent you from working for twelve consecutive months by may thirty one two thousand and fourteen the evidence indicates that why you would still have some difficulty in doing work that require substantial standing walking and live in and would still be you would still be able to reform your past work as hotel clerk as of may thirty one two thousand and fourteen that's pretty significant because she didn't actually improve her condition deteriorated she went from one hundred and ninety seven pounds to two hundred and eighty pounds from a combination of her medications that she was taking inability to take weight loss medications buter regular heart rhythm that she had and that was a new condition that had developed by that time two thousand and fourteen irregular heart rhythm she had congestive heart failure she had severe a demon those are all object findings that are supported i would also like to let the court room know that in rawlins this th circuit has said that objective evidence alone cannot be a basis for an adverse credibility finding so if the other reasons are taken away you