better is that better your honor and i'm sorry to say rarely appeals district court decisions the process for seeking approval to appeal from the solicitor general is difficult but when a significant legal issue arises as in this case the commissioner seeks that authority the issue here involves the title to trust fund the trust fund that has provided an economic safety net to hundreds of millions of american since the great depression that fund person first provided benefits to retired workers and their survivors and then later to disabled workers title two is not a welfare program it was not ever designed to be one title two is an insurance program and the premiums on the insurance are paid through a tax on earning if the tax is not paid the right to the insurance expires under title t is the insured status requirement plaintiffs in this case applied for title to disability benefit but based on limited earnings per insured status expired on june thirtieth two thousand and five a unique aspect of this case is that plaintiff also alleges her disability began on june thirtieth two thousand and five this means she had the legal burden of proving that she was disabled on that single da was very clearly failed to do that the medical record from two thousand and five the year in which this one single relevant date appears shows that plaintiff had a period of lumbar back pain and during the first six months of that year she received treatment from a pain specialist dr chaplin and she took pain medication she received steroids injections and one time when she received a type of treatment with electrical  deaden pain but it's important to remember that during the first six months of two thousand and five when she received all of this treatment she's not alleging she was disabled during that time there is no medical evidence from june thirtieth two thousand and five but what we do have is the final report of dr chaplin less than a month later on july twenty fifth he released plaintiff from his care he wrote a letter to plaintiff's treating physician and he wrote plaintiff reported doing very well she rated her pain as the zero to four on a tim point pain scale and she said she was taking no pain medication dr after two thousand and five plaintiffs remain fairly active in fact beginning in two thousand and seven and continuing through much of two thousand and nine mrs turpin worked for her husband's company she had a heavy long history of heavy smoking it appears she finally quit in two thousand and seven but had increasing shortness of breath she was diagnosed with seo p d definitively for the first time in the record in two thousand and eight two thousand and nine appears to be the turning point the pivotal year in her medical history several things happened in two thousand and nine she'd been hospitalized a couple of times for seo p d it was in two thousand and nine that this long term treating physician dr stabbed me advised her her condition would not improve and he actually suggested that she get an evaluation for social security disability it was in two thousand and nine that plaintiff actually filed her application for benefits and when she did s allege disability due to c e o p d not the lumber back pain that the metal called record shows in two thousand and five in fact dr stabbed me then referred her for counseling because she was developing depression stroke as a result of struggling with this p d n that is what she reported to dr sherman the psychologist in two thousand and ten she said i'm depressed i've been struggling with g o p d for about a year and i've applied for disability what this evidence shows is that plaintiff believes she was disabled and she was very limited by theo p d when she actually filed her application two thousand and nine it does not establish that she was disabled in two thousand and five she just simply has not met that legal burden the l j had a tough task here she had to assess the remote one day period seven years in the past and she did what she should have done on the record with offici developed there is no going back to that one day point in time in two thousand and five so she called consistent with agency policy she called a supplemental hearing for the sole purpose of receiving testimony for an orthopedic specialist because back pain was the issue in two thousand and five and she relied on that testimony and the the bottom line is this r f c that she formulated is very very strict of it it really accounts for every possible credible limitation due to this back pain in two thousand and five plaintiff has not stated or argued that there was any restriction in the r f c that should have been there that wasn't for all i would say that this record does not support this record supports the fact that mr penn has been disabled sense prior to her date last insured in july in june of two thousand and five i think the main issue here is the treatment of doctor stats needs opinion the regulations are clear that the treating physician is the best source of evidence as to how a claimant is functioning that's unless the medical records are inconsistent with correct physicians conclusion that's correct i think that it's important to note however that this doctor had a ten year history of treating this woman and more over nine times between just the eighteen months prior to her date last ensured he examined her he coordinated her care with the back pain specialist and it's precisely this type of interaction with the person that is the reason for the ruling that this these doctors did he rely on the c o p d that wasn't diagnosed until two thousand and eight i don't believe he did judge and if if you look at his questionnaire that's in question we ask on there have these limitations been present sense june of zero five and he specifically writes and yes at least with the back so i think had he not indicated that her back issues were key to his opinion that we could call that into question but in july of two thousand and five doc doctor chap likes the back she doesn't even need any medications right i think she had some short lived relief but she goes back in and sees him in september and after those nerves had been burned they were returning and she was all you know complaining of severe difficulties with her back just as early as september of zero five in the records so it's true that she did have some short term relief but again don't we don't aren't we limited to her condition on june thirtieth we have to show that she was disabled before her expiration of hirst's insurance status yes but then the entire record is in question she has once but once we show she's unable to work before her date last i'm sure that's all we need to show she won't get benefits back that far of course she'll be limited just to a year prior to her filing but i think it's also important to note that when she filed her claim on the application  why did you stop working and she indicates there the she quit driving her bus because of her back pain so while she she really quit working in like no one driving a bus and working in the cafeteria because of her surveyor back pain  is true by the time she finally filed it was her breathing that was a major issue but the back has been an issue all along and i'm sure that when she filed her claim with social security that whoever took that application saw that she was last in that date knew that in order to get any benefit all she had to show that she had been disabled part of that day and that's why it's a one day you know that's why that date comes into play but certainly as a an applicant for disability she had no idea of the significance of that but if you look that that's really she stopped working because of her back back in two thousand and one what is prior to june thirtieth relevant because isn't that her claimed date yes it's relevant because she has to be disabled before her insurance for title to lapse and that's the date of that letter claimed onset date is june thirtieth which is the yes say yes but  effectively it doesn't matter on the onset so much as long as it's before her date last insured because she can only draw benefits for a year prior to her filing so since she filed in two thousand later on in two thousand and eleven that's that's the limit on that so  the line he had the benefit of m r i c t scans it's not like he didn't know this woman sixty examinations just in this record from two thousand and four to three through three eleven march of eleven so that's that's a lot of interaction with a claim it was that i believe he was just his primary primary care physician your honor but again he he did send her to the various specialist think he recommended on down the road the psychiatric treatment and the like as her various pulmonologist and what have you as the other conditions arise and i think there's also an issue as as to the combination of this woman's limitations she did have documentation chronic bronchitis before her date last insured in june of zero five as well as the depression and the  would limit the ability to work at all it would be a severe impairment and even if they're determined to be not severe the combination of them i would say would absolutely limit her ability to work in th it wasn't consider one of those limitations well the ridiculous he was causing a lot of pain in her hip and down her leg in the bronchitis the breathing difficulties she'd have like limitations in terms of what did he did any doctor say she can't lift more than a certain amount or she can't stand more than a certain period of time so yes those sort of limitations related to those conditions well i think it again it's  not help on very much i think they did short term here on her butt but not not for the long run nor did the nerve block the burning of the nerves that the ablation that she had that that did give short term response but not over the long haul that coupled with she just she had just a lot of things going on but but the issue here is was her back disabling before this date last insured in june of zero five and we believe this record  benefit of the claimant's testimony he's looking at a very cold record and by the commissioner's own regulations and you know you need something more to to tromp a long term treating physician with this kind of knowledge and experience with the claimant wrongdoers back to the district would suggest that perhaps the district court was relying on the support that she had from her treating doctor your honor because i think when you look at that it gives much credibility to what she  concede that it's a short opinion or owner but i do believe that based on the regulations that state that unless you have a better or more thorough evidence a treating physicians opinion is to be given controlling weight i don't believe the dr  thank you very well school bus driver in two thousand and one is also consistent with the chase decision she found that plaintiff could not to her past relevant work so that is not an issue and she did it death a very restrictive r f c as far as the complaints of lumbar ridiculous there is debate about whether that condition existed but even if it did the are of the limited this person to know used to control only occasionally pushing and pulling with her lower extremities it would have accounted for anything that plaintiff claims resulted from lumbar ridiculous but the bronchitis to something plaintiff had a history of asthma she did have bronchitis but if you look a year before the relevant day to about six months afterwards there was no bronchitis or a period of about a year and a half she had no bronchitis then as far as depression she says she's taken medication since one thousand nine hundred nine which means she worked a number of years with it but require no other treatment the record clearly establishes that the depression that required treatment did not occur until two thousand and ten when dr stephanie referred her to dr sherman and she said i'm depressed because of th struggling with for about a year so all of that is consistent after they played a very important stewardship role in relation to the title to benefit program the trust fund monies are limited and millions of americans depend on them today to meet necessary living expenses if mrs turpin had been insured for benefits in two thousand and nine when she actually applied for them and when she was so limited by theo d c o p d her claim may well have been paid but in order to protect those trust fund money for the americans who are working and paying the premiums on the insurance for the millions who are receiving those benefits today and the millions of americans who who will hopefully have those benefits in the future claims like mrs terpenes m