inconsistent with this quite the dispute between the parties here is a defined period of time because as i understand it she's now receiving disability at current that's correct isn't what you're fighting about is a two year period as to whether she wa that might bear on on said in this dispute yes there's evidence from him about her not being able to make it to work every day or many days order and the fact that there is no overwhelming or very strong evidence in this case that would support the war to benefit but but if the district court had made some findings based on the old g s said something other than what he supports well she made statements about how she feels she's made statements but those are just her allegations what do you have to show that it's wrong if you have a doctor say this is of losing the benefits she's already attained that was the issue that was raised before judge all men in the oral argument because just the rather before that in a case on this in this similarly situated claim who had applied for benefits was denied appealed followed the course of the appeal to the district court and where all that appeal was pending issue my back to this same day who not only decided that she was not disabled his initial opinion but also decided that she was not currently disabled that is something that  determined that she was not disabled during any of the period of time and it took until october and the intercession of senator jack reed to push the claim fast and get a new appeal to the appeals council to get that other orders too broad because you're relying on the wilson evidence about the absences doesn't that start at the onset date from august th in only if you apply something greater than common sense in certain cases when it the commissioner has said that they can look at the record and make a commonsense judgement that the person was capable of i think the same thing applies here there is nothing in the record they show stress to her knowing that the commission is pushing not only to remain the case to revisit the issue of the disability but to put it in the hands of somebody who either the aged ror wrongly strip regulations yes they could be reopened but not for the reasons that this other claimants case especially are bent that other claimants case was reopened because there was a period out be it a small period but there was a period where she was down by the agency to be bold disabled and not disabled and that had speed back inside out that is not true in this case it he treating physicians not on testimony he said it was inconsistent with the evidence in the record and the magistrate judge specifically questioned the fact that he had failed to properly evaluate the opinion on absenteeism and that was riotous being part of the reason it was being sent back to the l j could specifically evaluate that the opinion given the nature of her evidence about what she was experiencing there's no reason given but she's saying to think she would not have been absent least twice a day and she did put forward evidence to show that if you're absent about twice a day twice a month if you have some twice a month then you would be disabled what do you have to contradict that conclusion but just a commonsense reading of the record given that the non treating physician says gee looking at these symptoms should be out four days what contradicts the conclusion that if you look at the record from earlier the that should be it would at least two days of what the state agency physicians consider they reacted to january two thousand and sixteen and we their exam concluded that she would