mister lacker in his claim for title to disability insurance benefits the judge in this case determined that he had inserted a severe impairments consisting of  compression fractures of his spine and and that he was unable to perform work other than work at a reduced sedentary exertional level and from age four thousand and twenty four to forty two he performed very heavy work as described by the occasional expert in the case installing doors and windows he stopped doing that job because of his back condition i had surgery for thrash sick fractures back in two thousand and ten i was on unable to work from two thousand and eight to two thousand thirteen in two thousand and thirteen he found a temporary service job involving to be recycling of laptop computer components of which he job that he performed for approximately six the capacity of performing the temporary placement job that he had done for approximately six months as of july th of two thousand and fifteen when he turned fifty years of age he would have been deemed just able by application of the source security grids to medical vocational rules specifically tool th so mr fleming can i ask you a question about that  he had been performing the i'm an administrative law judge says this laptop recycling you know disassembly would have you all call it job at the sedentary level he was not performing it at the somewhat higher exertional level that sedentary work intersects if your previous work had been sedentary well if the previous relevant were going to substantial gains like committee level was sedentary mean the a l j treats this is a step for ruling he was a prick to that laptop work at the sedentary levels the ale chain never gets to step five i'm just trying to feed how these two rules intersect because if he had been doing anything else or not working then the fact that he can only work at the sedentary level after he's fifty years old has consequences right very much no your honor yes he became disabled right so why is disabled if his previous work was sedentary we know that he's a fifty above the age of fifty and all he can do is said terry to take it there's sort of a little inconsistency in the rules here well the rules provide that if he is at step four it's just you see what i'm getting at reg would like to erect commissioner's view on this is well because if there's a reason for the system to say after you're fifty years old and all you can manage is sedentary  and your game disabled are eligible it's interesting that being only able to perform sedentary work for your previous job doesn't have the same effect he doesn't have the laptop job anymore right that's correct your honor yes yes that is it is a little bit confusing but that is that is interest my understanding of the law is that if he's able to perform any of his past relevant work no matter what the exertional level correct ok so so we maintain that errors were committed by the judge and that well also he did undergo some surgery just after completing a sedentary job and other medical and chiropractic treatment so there was a worse  maintain there was a clear worsening of his condition and so he maintained that he was unable to sit for longer than  a vocational expert whether the requirement of being able to interrupt sitting after a half hour and walk around for five minutes would eliminate the past relevant work and the vocational expert testified that it would eliminate the past relevant work plus it would be job reclusive there would be no other work that could be performed with that sedentary functional capacity and that we require met and secondly we maintain that the judge  capacity pinions including that mister locker would be off task more than twenty five percent of the work day that he would be absent more than four days per month that he could only sit for a total of four hours in an eight hour workday and he required a sit stand option all of those opinions on the part of doctor ruby were were would have precluded his performing that work as a as was found to be of past relevant work by the cited for areas of the evidence that were supported her position she claimed for only giving some weight to doctor ruby's opinions and looking at their reflection of mister locker's functional capacity and we maintain that they really just exercised some cherry picking in going over the records to find some areas where reports of ability to walk normally and in that type of thing  supported her her her claim that doctor ruby was not in his opinions were not worthy of controlling controlling we maintain that errors were recommitted and you terminations of the credibility of mister locker's claims as to his limitations and symptoms and errors were committed  for not providing a substantial evidence basis for not adopting doctor robi sippin law can you please address what strikes me as an anomaly regulation because what this means is that anybody who's forming sedentary work when they reach the age of fifty is not entitle to the benefit of the presumption that people who are not working at all but who can only get up to the sedentary level and that strikes me is intellectually inconsistent  there are no jobs anymore in the national economy for making typewriters because nobody wants a typewriter anymore well the vocational expert in saying that there are no such jobs and it's