good morning your honour's can you hear me yes with the baird thank you jeffrey there representing amber lavender this is a case about the need for special supervision the only two doctors who saw played a st hand and evaluated this particular limitation found she did need special supervision the most vivid one was dr irwin he found failure cereal threes poor instructions to follow she couldn't even follow the st instructions she asked for assurance she made mistakes on it she asked for help taking everything into account including his observations during is a clinical observations during the interview as well as the testing in the she's going to need special supervision and step five special supervision knocks out the world of regularly continuing work it's also true because under th and in her own observations during the interview and recording of symptoms and observing her behavior during the interview manifesting those symptoms as simple the cavalry doctor we were also include concluded there would be a need for special supervision lately chris said well he hangs out with her every day sort of her boyfriend difficulty understanding let me ask you this counsel because the  so that that means what's at stake here is just the nd application just that nd period issue and that was by the choice of the jail and eventful a witness not knowing what any doctor said found that is the girlfriend needed extra information or special help remembering information even for simple task mostly volunteer and have collapsed at those jobs in the sense that she couldn't keep sustaining it which led dr whelan to say and said i'm seeing two on the civilian ration she needs special help following her work she needs special supervision if there's no more questions at this point to me i'll just reserve my time all right thank you can't hel is not lavenders st application for benefits she was previously found to be not disabled and she now alleges many of the same impairments that were previously adjudicated however be able to reasonably found that those impairments with the exception of her carpal tunnel syndrome didn't significantly change from their prior to kishon and therefore she didn't overcome the presumption of continuing to civility at least with respect to these other parents i would like to start off by addressing opposing back to try or findings and makes a clear that she is comparing the new findings to the previous able to chase findings to route the decision so once she only uses the words rescue the card in one paragraph at the top utilize this doctrine and her decision in determining that lavenders mental functioning hadn't deteriorated from the prior determination and in fact that's a very logical reasonable conclusion when st as opposing counsel mention she was in special education she's has limitations to her whole life yet this has already been adjudicated before and found that those limitations do not result in disability and there's been no significant change at best you have doctors looking at the same evidence and coming to a slightly different conclusion and sean has tells us that that is not enough as a matter of law there has to be a change in the circumstances in order to warrant an able to abandon those prior find dates and that goes both ways despite what my opposing counsel said sometimes those those prior prior findings help a the narrow exception of this couple tunnel syndrome there was no significant change perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in that regard i would say are the treatment records which latter doesn't want to talk about but the  points to repeatedly in their decision and specifically doctored maggots in white we see that in the fall of two thousand and fourteen lavender engaged in mental health treatment for the st and only time and her so after only a few months of treatment she had made significant progress with any sort of anxiety or depression issues and social security you're required to look at extended periods of time of twelve continuous mon disability evaluation environment and the energy recently gave greater weight to that that contradictory trip testing that was done in the context of treatment as opposed to doing evaluations where the lab during the shoot was specifically for disability purposes so if there are no questions for the panel i will just ask you to affirm because be able to use findings were reasonable and supported by