mr surprise seeks reversal of the final decision of the commissioner with instructions to specifically address two issues not properly addressed or  medical expert at trial the vocational experts testimony indicated that such limitations selwyn then in between reasoning levels of one dollar and two dollars under the dictionary of occupational titles more to and there was never any attempt to address whether those jobs could be performed by somebody limited to twelve or three step instructions nd issue is that this was the  time this case had been presented to an administrative law judge moore if you take into account the number of times hearings were started and then stopped because of technical difficulties the previous cases either involve difficulties with the transcript or issues involving the mental impairment portion of the hypothetical question and residual functional capacity in each of the previous two decisions the administrative law judge specifically limited mr surprise to occasional handling or casual fingering or fine manipulation whichever any explanation within the decision itself it has been the position them mr surprise that whether you call this one the case doctrine issue or  has to be an agreement that the hearing has been a level there's no issue or nothing in any of the policy operations manual systems that i can find that clearly articulate there's nothing within the  position is that the in this particular case where really manning you allege that the mental impairments were improperly raised so we're reminding it based on the stipulation of the parties to address that specific issue by implication are adopting all of the other findings as part of their  what i guess what i'm also not really saying because the problem wins in this particular case when that issue was raised before the vocational expert the testimony seemed to imply that at least some if not all jobs  eliminated by that we're struction on fingering or fine manipulation and what tends to happen now is and we have you you go through multiple cases you go through multiple arguments you get the case finally reminded not once but twice to address a specific issue were guarding the mental impairment only to have the administrative law judge change the residual functional capacity without really any notice or any explanation which ultimately results in a denial it just seems that this type of activity frustrates the nature of the appellate process and the ability of claimants to have their day in court and to argue the ineffectiveness or excuse me the errors caused by administrative law judge in these proceedings because it just it's kind of like the analogy would be to grab a  balloon in the middle it just pops out someplace else there's nothing that seems rock solid certain on any of this that there's any value in pursuing these cases if judges can just change at their discretion without any indication of why how they're going to apply the evidence and wow what elements are going to include in their hypothetical question addressing the  handled the hearing myself and i question the most medical expert and detail about what was the term he said moderate limitations and instruction given to the fine mountain i'm sorry you have one minute left all right and that itself was never addressed at all the judge provided no explanation whatsoever as to why that specific limitation was not included or why that limitation was not addressed at all and i guess ultimately the question is is in the issue of substantial evidence substantial evidence is only as good as the explanations provided by the administrative law judge in the situation i think and social security that sometimes is lost the preserve lost for the forest and u brief sort of abdicates on the merits of the underlying evidence discusses them almost not at all instead asking the court to do something extraordinary not to rule not previously in that requires the preservation of any finding no against apple a ninety eight case by this court for as primary supporters arguments it doesn't support it wilder says quote that the lower court must quote conform to the principle set forth in appellate opinion on the natural reading of that language is one if the court directs you to do something you do it and two if the court tells you you did something wrong you don't do it again  specific text of the district court's decisions require the preservation of the prior findings they did the same courts indeed the same j federal court cases in this case in the district court and he did not that the court did not think that's  thirty two the record the l g grapples with this evidence talks about the a january two thousand and finger injury to two surgeries and months to repair the tendon the fact that later that same year he was able to cut and misrepresents the expert's testimony the vocational spirit on that page was presented not only with the dept asian fingering limitation but with a constellation of additional limitations all at once including a limitation to only occasional handling and the press operator job as described in the dictionary of educational titles requires frequent handling but only occasional fingering the location it was not presented with a simpler counter factual that added only the occasional fingering limitation and that's a testimony did not contradict the examination was specifically geared to elicit some meaning to the sturm simple routine and repetitive instruction and by forcing the medical activities or functions within a job there's nothing that specifically clarifies that the vocational expert took any of that issue into account based upon the hypothetical question that was asked by the locational expert it was only when i clarified and specifically asked a question of whether or not it fell in between those inconsistent with each other at least at that point you would have thought that the ministry of law judge would have picked up on that and then address the problem of the issue the decision is silent on that and if there's any questions