ph in this particular case we have simple routine repetitive no more than execution contact with supervisors of workers go public contact should not be in a situation close the r f c is what the determination is and what the claimant can or cannot do and then that has to be conveyed through a hypothetical question the problem comes then because the hypothetical question is not conveyed to the occasional larks all of the limitation so the real problem is in the hypothetical question because the vocational testimony is what is the crux of the case and where that determination is made except by that he could that they were going to be moderate limitations concentration persistence and pays attention and concentration there was a checkbox on being able to complete a normal work day and work week and maintaining a  communications correct whether he read it or not whether he understood it or not earth completely different issue if you received it the didn't read it who's who's bur you there and what she questioned him about at the beginning regarding his right to counsel they have to be able to clearly indicate and meet and explain to them what a contingent fee agreement is what has a high school education there's no indication that he was unable to read the amplitudes they were sent to him by no fewer than five occasions and as you pointed out there are the award attached to the hearing notice that he received and he when the administrative law judge question became an about right to representation she asked first of all what have you have you done anything to get your to get a representative have you have you tried to get a certain that the claimant got the pamphlet and then asked what the claimant has done to get representation in the claimants well i tried to get an attorney i went to several attorneys in the green bay area which was what the claimant said here and i also went to some attorneys who were closer to my home and none of them wanted to take my case then she can safely assume you know that it's possible to get an attorney for a social security disability case why not have the  individual received the pamphlet well that might be a best practice but it's certainly not required and none of the cases suggest that that is required and so here that would not be a basis for remand the case we know the claimant tried to get in turn he couldn't get one because they would take his case not because he didn't know about the right to representation or not because he didn't think that there was a benefit to getting representation i think the pampas explained to him that you know you can get it on a time so you can go and find an attorney and he said no he said i can i can continue with the hearing right now because he had not had a continuance yet and so the l g was going to allow a continuance that's what he wanted and he read he said what limits the claimant had with regard to her mental impairment first of all she she considered mr joseph six allegation and the fact that he said that he had problems with memory problems with concentration and trouble following verbal instructions any society when he was around other people compared those allegations to what the record i wouldn't say looked at examination findings from dr camp who was an examining psychologist normally to determine what the treatment should be and they give an idea of what the claimant symptoms limits are in this particular instance both of them gave scores that were in the moderate range of fifty used it is or was eliminated it from the d s m five so it's no longer in there and and generally you don't see them anymore in psychological pain and so when you're seeing a originally filed in two thousand and eleven and it was the decision was twenty fifteen at that point the g up scores were still included in the psychologist's opinions and so therefore there's something that they considered and here in that area but it's not a complete restructuring and it's a wide range that's another reason why we wouldn't include the language moderate concentration persistence or pace limits to occasional expert because it really does vocational rehabilitation counselors who are the vocational experts in these cases they actually do place people in jobs and the have a a knowledge of the workforce and they know what kind of restrictions would be medical records on their own they're not i was allowed to make independent reviews of the record and come to medical conclusions that's outside the area of their expertise and to the extent that the court has suggested that might be a way of opinions and here and with we had a psychologist or two psychologists rather who reviewed the record and came up with restrictions for one of the things i wanted to point out but the claims attorneys have misspoke about the restrictions that were in the act section one part of the the mental residual whether they're not significantly limited or moderately limited or markedly remain here the state agency psychologists found moderate limits in only three of the areas only three other areas then they did not have a significant limitation on pace and being able to do a normal work day and work day without interruption and perform at a consistent pace the doctors both found that the climate was not significantly limited in hypothetical question but they can't independently look at the backwards you agree on that that is that is accurate but they do do that i would point out that just to highlight the issue of articulation  state agency doctor doctor muscle page one seventeen of the record in the situation where he had to be placed around others he may have moderate difficulty maintaining attention yes these are case by case situation they're highly technical and they you can't there are no blanket rules on the you have to look at the total that's why the