any occupation stating that was or fescue was disabled from any occupation they saw her education training and experience based upon  the the gap that those are of the exact words that are used in my opening brief that it is not reconcilable to me i suspect that howie soon had that because of the change in the belly second you have all the the medical evidence including objective medical evidence that supports disability from on occupation and any occupation and then dr gard me only says in march of two thousand and this is basically a fact case from the reports of the doctors and i think it's clear that the reports of the doctors support the paines about this and i think that i think the area is clear the first problem raised is the irreconcilable there is no change in condition and for that reason we decided not to heal it in retrospect given the fact that part of what you actually hooper was doing was applying three physician rule which is obviously going to rule by the supreme court recently a ninety nine nov thirteenth ninety nine are no i would not i would not agree that i think that because there's no there's no evidence in the record that she had some kind of remission during that period well that's true but i don't believe that even up until that point i think that he hit record is i think very very complete i think there's a tremendous amount of examinations evaluations examinations a transfer of skills report the evidence was overwhelming that she was not disabled and she certainly could return to work the part of the part of the society irreconcilable and perhaps for her was simply finding that even for four or five month period feel get an m r i to have an m r i i found myself sort of a watch sort of areas and that's why i asked the question of lot of factual situations going back and forth i also and smoke when they came to that point with all those conflicting then are we down to saying well if you can fit in any occupation which is preventable then you're not disabled even though she says you know i'm having a hard time so the judge well i i i personally and the company certainly would disagree with her conclusion but we believe it is within the scope of her discretion to make the determination she did how can how could she have come to that patient and then it was later confirmed by all of the subsequent medical information so that in no time was she actually no time following the beginning of the any occupation  that's right and i want to agree i'm saying there was plenty of evidence that in fact mr prestwood was not so that there was some evidence that i think judge cooper was actually grasping onto to condition and the opinions vary over time roughly but the ultimate the surgeon was at the end that she was not the stable even though there had been some question in their opinions up to complete and answered the questions of the twenty but you're right but i think that's true with any any record of anyone's medical treatment generally there is that that's sort of up and down one doctor hitting one thing another doctor of the sizing something else normal condition that may have existed before and ultimately a decision has to be made here i think the decisions were made appropriately based upon the objective medical