still claiming disability from january first two thousand and eleven forward part have you gotten the right of what's in the record that is mchenry was working at a hair salon during that time so you're under view a few points he could have found her disabled as of december thirteenth two thousand and thirteen the date of her application so and that sort of amending is something that would go on at the administrative level with the ministry of  just you know i'm not taking anything any position on that here but i will say that third there is something in the record on her so the notion that she was working this entire time i don't think  two thousand and eleven it just seems strange that in two thousand and eleven she would make this sort of calculation that she was suddenly going to stop paying her her taxes work under the table and then wait two years and apply for disability benefits there's really no logical explanation for someone to to do that there's no benefit  period of her coverage  one whether whether it's going to allow an l g not a medical expert to interpret incredibly complex medical evidence three months earlier and that's what happened here i mean looking at the administrators record forty two forty three the just decision he makes clear quarter's time and time again around that that kind of interpretation of medical evidence by a judge is improper and that or that kind of evidence should be subject to medical experts scrutiny the second major question i think the court has to answer is whether it's going to accept commissioners argument and appellate speusippus quite a peculiar argument that meeting criteria and medically equaling and listings criteria for effectively the same thing  regulations in the case presser demonstrate a medical expert could have reviewed the m r i reviewed the records prior to the date last sure demonstrated a lot of severe pain widespread tenderness at complaints of widespread pain she's being treated with  the listing based on an m r i that showed a severe spinal etiology just three months after the day last insured and i think it's important that we understand the reason i say that severe is because it will one day i'll take knowledge in his decision at forty two and forty three but also security of knowledge hearing some doctors make these these calls they review evidence that comes in shortly after the last insurers they interpret it and they determine whether or what that is something that doesn't necessarily take a medical expert to determine a simple google search can can can establish that that these sorts of severe degenerative spinal issues don't just develop over the course of three months now and with that i just request that she did i think like you said those are the two sort of most significant findings from that appointment however it also said that she was doing relatively well she had just returned from a three week trip to alaska where she quo enjoy the last two weeks of the vacation and actually if you look at the next record which is just outside of the the relevant time period in february two thousand and fourteen during her first visit with the doctor i pull she she again is reporting that really the only thing that's bothering her with some right elbow pain and she is again doing relatively well and she affirmatively tells her doctor that she is doing well on her medications with no adverse side effects and crucially there is a negative straight leg raised during that f sending it back on the country has not even attempted to demonstrate that you meet any of the other criteria for a listing one point zero four i was talking about the twenty fourth i'm all right  say yes this person would experience severe enough symptoms to be present to flee disable second i want to address this the notion that miss mchenry was telling her doctor she was fine  and so i think the idea that she was doing fine is unsupported by the record did want to say one thing about the reconsideration stage there's no evidence that the doctor there ever ever looked at this m r i he didn't mention