administrative law judge made no errors at all with respect to the two what mr collins could do that is that he needed to alternate sitting and standing he could only occasionally have postural things like balancing he only needed a low stress job  and a light level job and he could do no fingering on the left an occasional handling on the right that there are no jobs a vocational expert was properly brought because the the question of whether there are jobs is the burden of the commission or the vocational expert when the administrative law judge first gave the hypothetical gave four jobs and they're listed a parking lot attendant a ticket seller a teacher's aide a survey worker and he said those are the four jobs gave the number at that point and all four of those jobs and we have set forth in our brief all four of those jobs require constant or frequent fingering and in this case administrative law judge gale found no ability to finger with the left hand and constant or frequent handling and administrative law judge found only occasional at that point even if there had been no attorney if it been pro bono even if he represented her turning who was there asked no questions a vocational expert it's error because there is a conflict between what the administrative law judge found and what the jobs require even if there'd been no questions but in fact there were the vocational expert was asked what is the if what are the requirements of the job of these jobs with respect to fingering and with respect to handling the vocational expert said i don't know i would have to look it up the vocational expert was then asked given the hypothetical of the administrative law judge would you agree that if these jobs required either constant or frequent either fingering or handling that there would be no jobs he said i agree he then went back and provided to the court to the administrative law judge there was one slight typo but but he provided to the administrative law judge that all of the jobs required constant or frequent the administrative law judge simply ignored that and found that he could do those jobs the error is that this court found brault that if the book ational expert gives a reason if he says ok even though the jobs require frequent or constant handling still based on my experience based on whatever based on on whatever he can do the job then no matter how good the cross is we can prevail but that's not the case he did not say that he did not say in fact he did not say that he had a reason that the person could do the job he specifically said they could not and the administrative law judge in the commissioner apparently took the position that brought says that you can just ignore what the what people creational experts said vocational expert said there was no jobs or couple of their couple red herrings in the first one in the first argument one is that this specific question and mind you you're getting a type transcript or not listening to it to specific question said frequency said frequent and constant fingering on the left and handling occasional and didn't repeat left when when he said handling but even if it wasn't there's no there was nothing at all in this case for the respect  right hand that is clearly left hand requires he's got zero ability according to the judge and the job through corps constant fingering and and or preclude and the vocational the teacher a degree from one of the other jobs is frequent or constant could mr colville get the job that he answers no but the immediately preceding question talked about your client past work as a teacher a dress and carried a machine feeder so when the subsequent question refers to other jobs isn't that naturally understood to mean that that list of jobs which are his your client past work it's not these other jobs that the vocational expert was saying he could do and my misunderstanding something in this record i guess we reference the jobs and we referenced the hypothetical  reference could they do the jobs if the job required constant even even if we were still talking about those jobs if the jobs are card constant or frequent handling even if the question was never asked there 's a clear conflict and there's no evidence as to why these jobs but it isn't it says we say no fingering on the left and occasional handling and that obviously complex is about the past relevant work so your argument really is that doesn't make any difference because the following question is can he do a job can he do any job that requires frequent handwriting and the answer was that he cannot and  that's why i was asked because you and that's exactly why he was asked and that's why the vocational expert provided those answers and again even if he'd been pro bono even if there hadn't been anybody asking the job part constant was pardon my stream was not whether he could do any job that required frequent a constant was the teacher aide or even one of the their jobs is frequent or constant and the other jobs that were spoken about immediately in the question beforehand were the past work jobs so i'm i'm a little i'm still a little concerned about how we construe that question asked that way to be the expert's opinion that he couldn't do anything i mean after all this is an expert who says he can work as a survey worker parking lot attendant ticket seller all of which do require handling and fingering but it's not clear whether they require with both hands that's true and if the vocational expert had given that answer then brought clearly says we lose it's a vocational expert says ok he can he can he can do a job such as as the survey worker with one hand although i don't know exactly how we do it we lose but that's not the case he said there are no jobs we were we were asking but it's the the problem again is is is that when we were talking we were talking about all of the jobs and even if we had the job too hard constant and frequent to somebody who can't finger at all and the very end the vocational expert gives absolutely no no explanation as to the conflict but in fact says the opposite he says there are the person could not do a job based on those factors  clearly in this case substantial evidence supports the eldest finding that residual political capacity finding the calling to perform a range of unskilled light work with the full use of his right dominant hand and only occasional handling with the left non dominant hand  fingering with the left non dominant hand was supported but there's back to step by determination issue in this case they all day properly relied on the vocational expert testimony and finding that given his limitations that colvin could nonetheless reform the work of a survey worker ticket required for that job is constant or frequent so the theory is that even though he's essentially lost the use of you know several fingers on one hand he can drives and the primary responsibilities of the parking lot attendant are driving which is something he's able to perform with his current ability if you think somebody would harm short really ok i mean if you say able to to handling the fingering handling requirements at the time he offers his opinion about parking lot attendant ticket taker in so may not have been aware that those require frequent fingering and might be beyond the capacity of this  petitioner right in this state he didn't say that he didn't know them he said that he didn't have him before him which was the stink he testified in this case on the basis of his experience of familiarity with these jobs which he created do in the beginning of the hearing and once providing these limitations as requested by plaintiff's attorney at the at the end of the hearing at no point did he change his opinion which he had presumed previously stated that an individual of all the limitations contained in the r c determination and characteristics could perform these jobs would pose an additional responsibility for the to inquire further about the conflict but since there is no conflict since those two limitations can be reconciled because they go to a silent on this point there was no further further a reconciled because the state the massive maximum requirements of the job and it doesn't state whether or not an individual can perform that job using primarily one hand or the other and that's where the vocational expert comes in to offer his or her testimony hypothetical with regard to the handling requirement it didn't specify which which are made it is clear that extended to both arms additionally there's if you review the hypothetical it added a reaching limitation and it was very convoluted in its wording and it was not clearly clear whether or not there differentiate between a deities or carmen's and the individual individual's requirements and the jobs posted the jobs stated by the location expert as well as the jobs that the individual performed as his pastoral and what ambiguity operates in favor of a firm and is what because the hypothetical posed does nothing to refute the initial testimony that an individual with all the limitations that the l ultimately found that coleman had that he could still perform the three jobs identified which were the survey work or the parking lot attendant and the other the other position  nothing in the record refuse that doesn't mean the l j was perfectly reasonable relying on the vocational expert testimony which was given on his considerable expertise  so i mean as stated the elder in this case was perfectly perfectly within his means to rely on the vocational expert testimony at the beginning of the hearing coleman had the opportunity to object to the testimony and he did not additionally once which is actually particularly notable in this case is that once the vocational expert provided the reaching and handling and fingering limitations  the tourney he also offered the efforts of the attorney at that point to challenge those and offer anything with respect to them and he said that he did not think that a further hearing was necessary and he did not offer any further challenges to the location expert's testimony in so adding given an ample opportunity to respond to the location expert testimony at the hearing and after the hearing after he submitted after the provided the additional limitations attorney was perfectly within his right to wait to consider all the evidence and based on the vocational expert's testimony that an individual with limitations including the limitations of no but let me give the second quote there's a quote it's transcript nine zero nine and it's the last question as to the reaching handling and fingering requirements of the and there were two past jobs and then the three step five jobs as to the reaching hammering and finger  of the one two three four five jobs that are still in play and then we ask how do we go about getting the the the requirements as set forth in the d o t and judge gale decided that the the it would send it and then then we could object so in the one say in the one time we say teachers eight and other jobs the second time we say requirements of the one to t event three four five these are the three step five jobs five jobs and the judge said and judge gale says yes ok let's get let's get let's get it and the v a clearly understood it because when he gave it to us he didn't give the the the fingering and handling requirements of just two past relevant he gave paul five because it was clear when you were sitting in that courtroom that's what we were talking about the question is if the vocational expert specifically asked if the jobs require constant or frequent and he specifically said no jobs sorry i don't read page nine zero nine this is at the bottom you and the or between council and the a l p with the vocational expert still there write the quote but it's a forgive you your honor i'm trying to understand your point because i had read the exchanges at page one ninety three ninety four which is what you're highlighting you're pretty right now looking at page nine zero nine what is it that the experts say that you think we should construed  mean that he's a green that your client cannot do these jobs well the expert on seeing that but i want you to point me to ok the expert in the that the question is whether when we were talking about those it was understood by everybody we talking about all five jobs and when we went to when the question was first asked a teacher's aide or other jobs but here we clearly say all five the ve said if jobs require constant or frequent then this person can't do it and then when he gave to the court the requirements he gave it up all five including the three step five job i'm looking for weird that's obvious because at the bottom of nine and them going over to nine twelve when he starts to speak i assume the a is his answer that locational expert he starts to talk about security jobs and guard positions i don't see where he's referencing these other jobs but if if i'm missing something it's because and i don't have the but in the transcript we set forth in our brief we tranche we set forth that the vocational expert then sent in what was asked  which is the fingering and handling requirements on all five jobs he clearly understood it because that was still he's still under oath he still provides the information and he provides the information for all five