credibility was not properly assess and it had likely raised the argument about the poor connection to work being an on task i just want to make that clear in district court the argument was very narrow she very narrowly argued that the improperly relied on the fact that her alleged onset date was just one day after she had been denied on her previous application now the district court rejected this argument and mr richards in the brief talks about the prominence of an on task issue and addressing credibility in our  doesn't mean mr mr rahman doesn't bring that up today and not in court but that's primarily the argument that's raising in the group mr richards to not raise or even hint at this issue and district court for that reason we ask this court to decline to address this wholly new ish more fundamentally however we ask that this court upholds the o'jays decision one because it is supported by substantial evidence richards was not to say now with regard to be credibility analysis first of all if i could point out the district court also pointed out the  involved yes a history of abuse and depression difficulty sleeping at night the o j addressed your allegations of migraine headaches carpal tunnel symptoms he addressed fully your allegations of physical limitations factors a centrally barratry was trying to determine do these individual things enhanced her credibility in other words does it weigh in her favor he looked at the new onset date now frequently and i would even say apply for unemployment benefits you are required to make a statement then an assertion that you are able and you are you are looking for work and that is completely at odds with your simultaneous application for  benefits in which she sang she is disabled he was unable to work that was appropriate or b o j also looked at her post alleged onset date work now this was not substantial intellect ability admittedly but it mentioned before this was a program that they were very significant that she was able to maintain relationships she took her medication without reminders she cared for her own personal needs she did some cooking to get the household chores with breaks and i emphasize that because the o j didn't just blankly say she did all these things he acknowledged the fact that she stated that she had limitations in doing i won't go through all the daily activities but certainly you get the idea the point that she's also making in the brief with regard to on tax again we maintain that that issue is waived but for the sake of detailed art and the mental limitations here are for simple routine repetitive work activity she can maintain the concentration only to perform simple tasks and remember a simple work like procedures functional limitations which account for the on task issues that that may have been present and the prior knowledge a did not b o j mention the first decision and that first decision by the way is in the record of one hundred forty one ninety two he did mention that he had to but he mentioned it only in the context of whether a reopening was appropriate avenue chairman that was not he proceeded to properly employ a did novo review of the  reason there's no evidence that she is regularly the only taken psychotropic medication and for those medications that she does take there's no evidence of ongoing long term side effects the northeastern treatment when you look at these these treatment notes and detail your concerns mainly involved day to day living personal relationships financial concerns she also failed to show for several appointments but interestingly she did follow through obligations that she's unable to relate with people she kept busy taking her daughter to softball games and other excerpt regular activities crocheting and teaches that teaching others to crochet and i'm running out of time so unless there are any questions thank