right case number three for this morning is linda green against colvin acting commissioner fourteen twenty one thirty six the objection to magistrate phase so we're talking about a very short period of time are we not she her alleged onset date is june thirtieth two thousand and eight and her date last insured is just march two thousand and nine might correct yes there is a a short period of time and which disability has to be proven in order for her tracks s t i be benefits but if she does prove that she became disabled within that little nine months or whatever it is window then her disability benefits would continue yes unless the judge made a finding that they did not last short twelve months ago or factually yeah  but that's correct your honor yes so i proceed please thank you i'm one spend most of my time on the handling and fingering issue and on the migraine issue even though i died this issue and the thyroid cancer issues just kind of seem like they're the major factors in the case and they're very important i would like the following we have heard us and show up until after march thirty first know very fortunate in that regard and that you know it's possible although i have it's possible that she's all better now but that's not part of the record i'm not i don't really know how she's doing now well yeah but if you look at what each of the and she had it concretely with the fire oid lymphoma afterwards so the continuity can be established by the hashimoto's even though there is whe concrete medical expert testimony that says that you know i understand we can go to the m d and so on every website you like but i didn't find a physician of any type treating state saying that the thyroiditis to have had embedded in it enough of lymphoma that she was actually disabled by march thirty first i agree with you there your honor and that's testimony and object deve medical testing and yet they appear essentially absent from the residual functional capacity and they would have me dr stack for example is treating her for the arthritis as early as two thousand and seven and that point she's still running these three florist d in that regard she's self employed i think the this just surmising i think that she tried to hang on to this job that she created for as long as she possibly could including showing up sick and there's testimony that she would she would just you know deal with her medical problems why she was on the job you know rest when she had to do it cetera that's part of why i think headache issue i think is even stronger then the handling in fingering issue there are even restrictions mentioned phone a phobia total phobia and there is expert testimony tying it back to the relevant period before the date last insured and not only that but what reminds me i thought and there is a comment that said that it was well controlled but this isn't right during the period just before the diagnosis of the cancer and so i'm not sure that that comments untitled all that much weight because and i don't think that the ale days actually reading the m r i well i'm not sure that the m r i meant evidence was mentioned but at some point one of the subsequent reviewers whether it's magistrate or the the hyper intensity is that show up with all sorts of really bad things like and they're all mentioned a number three and so the point is that there's a lot here from all sorts of different directions but this case could be one on them on the headaches alone and and sometimes i think we hyper divide the impairments and part of that's the state of the science that we have and the way everything ensured till the end it's that she had the claimant knew something was wrong and she testified that something was wrong and her doctors and science fenceless found it so ok she could still do that work right now the appellant references the several impairments that she alleges were not adequately discussed by the l j as this court pointed out most of the relevant evidence that points to does occur well substantive reasons to support her findings i just wonder how would how do we go about stopping the boilerplate credibility language from about that this court is also held and that does have a problem that boilerplate language what is also held that going to look at the substance of that credibility find out what we do in our minds as we take a large black pencil and we excise that language that it actually detracts but it's like a search warrant if you go you take out the offending language and then you ask is there something here that satisfies the statutory standards and i think in this case a clearly the l headaches so i think there is some evidence of the headaches during the relevant period in two thousand and seven which is prior to the relevant time period and could during the relevant time period the treatments are very routine there is very little mention of things such as headaches or a lot of the other impairments that that and alleges here on appellant claims that there are symptoms that come out during this time period don't seem to be relying solely on the testimony of the claims as opposed to actual treatment notes or doctor's opinions and appellant again does not speak the fact that the only doctor's opinions out here that really look at that relevant time period they've actually said there's no sphere impairment at all the o j did give the benefit of the doubt on that point in great detail but but the fact that there were m r i s first of all this was after the day i asked i'm sure and you can infer i mean some physical conditions don't just pop up overnight so if you have an m r i after the date la s sure there's a very reasonable inference that you are looking at a picture of an organ or the brain or whatever that has been affected for a while absolutely and what they did is looked at the evidence right before that m r i during the day during just pop up but if see if the appellant was in fact experiencing disabling symptoms from june of two thousand and three two thousand and nine it's reasonable for the l g to assert that that would be reflected those symptoms would reflected in treatment notes in complaints in in something else of that nature and that just is not present in this case now with respect to some of the upper extremity problems that appellant does seem to have a real problem with arthritis absolutely absolutely and the l g delimited light work as a result again here we're talking about fact that despite reports of some pain in the upper extremities even before the it legit onset dated around i think is april two thousand and eight that the appellant did not receive significant treatment for these impairments we do concede that there are an awful lot of illnesses diseases i mean it's a lot for one person is it not so there certainly are i mean it whether you know this gets in some of the point insane you symptoms worsened or the symptoms got worse once again l j is not tasked with with speculating the oldest has a look at what the record actually says and once again we have a record that really did show some treatment and certainly so some treatment  shows severe impairment sale jek knowledge all that showed that there were severe and limiting impairments but the fact matter is during the relevant time period in around the relevant time period the evidence is not there there were a number of normal examinations a normal test showing very few abnormalities of are notoriously difficult to treat they are and there's obviously is a full range of patients claimants who have these and other impairments there's varying degrees of severity just because someone has it does not mean they are in able to that they're able to meet a high standard of security disability and in this case are just not the evidence there's not evidence that shows that she was consistently seeking out treatment and reporting the symptoms during the legit time period or even right around we just don't have that evidence you know and just like judge would i was taken with the idea that she could continue to be a florist i mean they they pick up such heavy that the appellant sure did have employees so this isn't this isn't the case of an individual who who is the sole employee and owner of the business and must do everything and you have this inadequate and so i'm remembering correctly comment from th folk ational expert you know as performed she was doing it at a medium exertional level and so there is actually maybe it's not really a step for finding because she couldn't it would promote judicial economy if you would just draw the line our most ever every other case that i get ready before district court has it in there and it gives  some appeals that maybe didn't have a lot of life in them and so that's one issue one reason to do it the other reason is legitimacy  plate language makes the ael j decisions look illegitimate it looks like they've backed into them so make my job easier i don't have to do most in many cases and i'm all right well thank you very much mr forbes thank you mr genki we will take the case under advisement