With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Woodmancy v. Colvin, No. 5:12-CV-991 GLS, 2013 WL 5567553, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2013), we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency determination that Woodmancy did not carry her burden of demonstrating that these conditions were severe impairments. Nor are we persuaded that there is any unwarranted inconsistency between the ALJ’s determination that these conditions did not cause serious impairment while substance abuse did. While these conditions may all have required ongoing treatment, substantial record evidence indicated that Wood-mancy either failed to pursue or to benefit from treatment for substance abuse but did benefit from treatment for the other conditions in ways that minimized their impairing effect. See Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033, 1039 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). 2. Residual Functional Capacity Woodmancy

A: holding that receiving advice or treatment during the exclusionary period for a condition which proves to be the same condition the claimant seeks benefits for qualifies as a preexisting condition regardless of whether there was an accurate diagnosis
B: holding condition was not severe impairment where it improved from treatment
C: holding that once one severe impairment is found the combined effect of all impairments must be considered even if other impairments would not be severe
D: holding that for a plaintiff to prove that he has a record of impairment under 42 usc  121022b there must be a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities
B.