it's a long time to recover from injuries like that four years is not a very long period of time he did undergo quite a bit of of medical rehabilitation and there are ample medical herds which predate the a o d however he did go back to work immediately he loved his job and he went back to work and found that he could not sustain it what happened was in one thousand nine hundred one i'm vino's to him he developed high blood pressure this in combination with the residual effects of this accident combined to make it impossible for him to continue working there for you quit his job he thought he could take a couple of months off recuperate and go back to work he tried to do that he tried a couple of jobs he lasted about two weeks one job at a christmas tree farm left in tears because he was simply asked to stay overtime and work a little more could not handle the pressures of their job and lasted two days last ensured that during this period of time there's a tree or a hole in which the climate did not go to the doctor this is just simply not true our examination of the record shows that he went to the doctor he had five appoint predisposition now to arthritis because of the changes in his spine and the other areas that were injured i would suggest that there's not enough evidence to verify for  serves in making the determination if there's any doubt whatsoever it must proceed past step two and i my contention here is that there is enough in this case adding together the fact that he didn't consider the impairments in combination did not predict at least five doctor visits during the period of time makes a blatant errors of fact in saying that there was no records during two years that in itself is significant limitations in his ability to do work related activities and the third is that they have promised last for twelve continuous months they'll do a rationally found planets did not meet at least the last two parts of that test gaps in treatment here during the relevant time period and again it's what we agreed that planet did have a serious injury in one thousand nine hundred seven but what counts is what were his functional limitations during the rel last calendar year of his alleged disability period i thought she said the l g a erred by trying to get there was a two year hole in the record in the last the last two years of his alleged disability i'm not sure if i got that period right but record as it was at that time at page three ninety eight plans attorney said he had no further exhibits to add to the record and the page for thirty four year three to submit the case on the current record as mr then now plan of the new attorneys arguing well the l j should never lied on that should have gone on beyond and developed the record further well it's true that an l j always does have an independent duty to develop the record in these circumstances it would be somewhat well retroactive opinions can be helpful at times it's kind of a stretch to find out for a consultant examination in two thousand to do to ask the doctor what the limitations were interpretation of the evidence is irrational but the question is really what is the elegies interpretation of the evidence rational if you look at it one way to look at it is the way he did in that said the plaintiff received very sparse and i think medical treatment here and whether or not any of us would have looked at the same evidence and fasting differently that was a rational way to look at it and therefore this court sh