there's a little twist in this case in the sense that the second application was filed before the terminations of the first proceeding the second application was filed a partner six months prior to the decision by the appeals counsel in the first case also a situation where we have a medical report from an attending treating doctor who relates to disability back to the opinions of a doctor judge the second patient and the second opinion i must advise of course there have been some developments in this case that are not part of the record when this case was appealed to the federal court well second hearing was held in the remember of one nine hundred ninety nine which resulted in an unfavorable the siege of february of two thousand now the claimant was not represented in the first hearing that was held on the first application and the second hearing it was a not attorney represented representative attended and here it is not clear from this record how much involvement that forum than two thousand it took him two years to get permission from the welfare agency of the state of washington to get an m r i done when it was done finally in october  thousand and two the findings were so significant that she was immediately for it to endure a surgeon and surgery was performed at less than a month we have doctors all along saying that she needed evaluation and theirs and when the application or the first application because under the rules a person can only be paid benefits twelve months prior to an application so if this court says the first application stands as it were the first decision stands and we part of how well the race if we assume that she has a title to a finding of disability based upon the report of dr curtis the the practical effect is you you have a minute and a half here there is substantial evidence to support that two thousand and two date i can call what i call the kidney incident in september of two thousand and two with a very significant incident and made a big difference incident her pain was much less on the record at two forty seven she tells dr kirkham that she went to a chiropractor the first time was ok but the second time she went back he made it worse at two forty four in the record in october two thousand  her condition and at two thirty six plaintive tells dr higgins that she's now in more constant pain than she's been before and that in the past she's had pain however it's been relieved by chiropractor treatment the denial notice is back that statement we're going to review your claim back to one thousand nine hundred ninety eight somehow telling her that we're going to read open your claim and we're going to look at it back to your original onset of nine nine five and that in the other cases they also none of the other cases were strictly reversed or reopened based on the fact that the person was not represented they also look to see whether or not the record was fully developed  in that case they looked at the fact that he was under represented and during the first hearing the l j didn't ask any questions didn't develop the record because he was pro so even if we don't apply if we are not legal quite race you're caught in this case that's where the court is leaning we still look to see whether or not it is basically whether or not there was good cause if you are going to review that hearing he orders a second examination and he sends the second doctor a set of iraq authorities asking questions of the second doctor the second doctor says i can't answer these in a rocket stories with an m r i because i'm seeing things here that require case without further diagnostic evidence which the ael say didn't care which he had a duty to get with an undrafted claimant and then when we finally do get an m r i in the second case in two thousand and it discloses the very thing that everybody is very sorry about for years and the case should have been reopened because the first two doctors of the first page talking about the need for diagnostic testing that didn't take place for four years and