am not legally sure why i'm here in terms of what it is that may be interesting this court let me begin by saying something that i can say that the rest of the people involved in this case maybe can't which is just a report from the trenches that what happened in terms of race judicata here is pretty unusual in cases anyway you will see res judicata applied or more often a new course you may be getting into a question of straight reopening but you don't this is this is not how it's usually done to invoke res judicata so aggressively and it's not how you want it to be done and of course we're talking about a kind of unusual and unique form of judicata here being away the reason you don't want it to be done is because people's medical conditions change and you don't want to foreclose on them being able to come back and be found able to get this soon for a minute for  you know you can either either way just assume for you perhaps your question is get if you did ok went on to this to address all all the the new evidence that was in that right that was what i was going to say perhaps what you're trying to ask is the basic question that i asked and my briefing and how the court below handled that that you know some explanation was given for why race judicata was applied and therefore that gets to cover the usual analysis and so it should be upheld well the l d l j said nonetheless some go take a man take a look at all the evidence and he does he takes a look at all the any your question i don't have all day so right i am fully aware of that well there's something close to the shortest answer is that we are here in this case perpetuating residual functional capacity that was first found in two thousand and eight by a console the examiner who did not see any of the medical imaging evidence and besides that's a long time ago that was in the previous claim ound just looking to count how many m r i is my answer let me get laid just maybe i have you know the reason given for pretty much everything this decision does is always the same and i wondered it well if we're going to talk about what i always call the use of monday and daily activities against a claim and last one of the runs in daily activities i'm asking you to to give me your best argument why the l j erred in not giving full weight to the treating physician d pfizer and dr fenton well then i mean the quickest answer i can give is the answer that i gave that i think suggests something a little bit novel because if there is an error in having a relied on race it you know eleven or twelve of the pages are a very conventional straightforward treatment of symptoms and disability race judicata as a page or so it best so if you just examined what he rejects it in correctly because well that rejects it incorrectly because it relies on monday and daily activities that miss characterizes the evidence and one of the interesting issues here that this case is a little bit dramatic about it is is that rejects it rejects her especially of it probably it could be said all these other things are rejected because of her refusal of treatment in the face of a pretty horrible situation where she probably almost had to have surgery and that's what the doctors say  if resting a case on race judicata is clearly wrong under the case law and there is no press alternative finding that well in any case here's here's you know why why she loses should the case be reversed here though those that alternative explanation is bad and we've just gone and gone  did was provided responses to a form with a lot of boxes just checked the boxes right correct and he didn't and he you know he didn't really have any sort of detail analysis or anything and says well you know we can't really put much weight on this but let me ask you this isn't this form provided by the i don't believe so your honor i think it run away from judge parsons question so i think the excerpts of record i think it's three forty seven do i have that right if you're forty seven or there's over number one fifty seven three hundred forty seven i believe it says former prove office of management budget number zero nine five zero zero five six two looks like a reform provided by the social security office of disability review but there is another problem with a doctor it was dated on march seventeenth two thousand and ten which is about three months prior to the ledge the onset date in the in this case look pretty close i know but opinions prior to the alleged onset day are relevance ok i'm not sure that i read the l j z opinion in that way but i thought he was very much concerned with the form with the format of his opinion the format of the printing is also deficient lycra and that's on page four forty eight four forty nine a record then we get to dr fenton let me ask let me go back to i just want to because i see this in a lot of social security case and i'm always been kind of curious about this but here it seemed to stand out to me is that the agency provides for the doc you fill it out and then they say well we're not going to give him it anyway we're not going to give it much weight because it's just check the box and he didn't he didn't really supply the answers or explanation but that seems kind of the strict  on well the form itself may have been provided but there still needs to be support for the doctor's position and i don't think there is any support for the doctor's position as the end of his record he has his own record correct right here we go to dr phil for just a not lift more than five pounds something like that cracked and i thought he was his term was a little he she sees lifting pushing pulling over five pills right yes and he said that's claim even though that she recommended that she not left push for five pounds first of all that's not really a medical opinion that's all mia and the treatment record so it doesn't list any functional limitations other than that limitation so it's u nder the regulations medical opinions are statements from physicians that reflect judgments about the name isn't that what isn't he trying to assess her or you know her ability to do things is evaluated in a and one line sentence he even considering claimants argument regarding the not applied the presumption of an awesome disability correctly there's multiple instances of the record that still preclude disability based on these very normal  examination findings and as claimant mentioned the activities of daily living which she described which she describes as mundane but they actually are fairly active she was able to ride a bike swim  go to church and use these are mundane activities and in conjunction with her normal so they don't have a person doesn't have to be completely incapacitated in order to receive benefits correct but the record as a whole demonstrates non disability so it's those was just being told to do was part of the problem that identified in my brief that you're probably dealing with electronic charts that are giving normal findings because that's not the point of the exam  i regarding dr pfizer's assessment apparently that assessment mistakenly or for some reason did not get into the prior claim and  i don't think any good reason was identified as nate why you cannot look at dr pfizer's assessment in this claim just because it comes four months before her alleged onset date presumably it applies going forward and i don't think there's any doubt about that going more to the heart of the matter and i do say this in my briefs you're not going to see an administrative law judge writers only know how to write one form of decision so it's always going to look it's always going to take the form of a decision that that could serve the double duty of denying the claim and  we've already been over why i don't think why they do every twist and turn of that it just doesn't work i think the bigger question is you know just what to do if there's anything interesting about this case and my problem obviously was what is that it's either what good does race judicata do or you know can you use her recent declining treatment and really serious situation