issues that's the st point it is a somewhat hybrid because social security ruling zero that's for p requires administrative law judges to ask the vocational expert whether or not their mentioned by the vocational expert in this case the judge the descriptions of the job for forty years old but the st point i was making was about this ruling which the l j didn't meet as mandated obligation because the obvious inconsistency between your client's mathematical ability and then mathematical qualifications described in the dictionary that wasn't the point i was making a law that is one of the points we are used in in the brief the st there were talking about is the reasoning level in that's in the dictionary by comparison of titles that for two out of three jobs there's a reasoning level of two which requires the ability to handle detailed instructions and instructions but at most the claimant would be able to handle reasoning level one jobs and only one of the three jobs that the vocational expert testified to was a reasonable one job but then another very important p titles and then when one sale j determine how long it had been again in this case almost forty years to l j then should ask a vocational expert if the job is currently done in the same manner that it was done forty years ago and it's not how is it currently done and how does the vocational expert know that if this is the case for every job description and the dictionary is it all exactly forty years no it's all very outdated i think nine descriptions well the l j may not know exact day on day doesn't go and look at the dictionary occupational titles for the specific jobs the vocational expert mentioned he wouldn't probably wouldn't know that but he would know that they were outdated  and therefore should have an obligation to ask the vocational expert well how are they currently done because that's step five this commissioner's burden to establish that the claimant can actually perform these jobs so how those jobs are currently done is critical the one reason the level one job here is actually someone who assembles traversed curtain rods and the question is in the eye forty years for instance has that job become automated to people have to use or robots doing that work there's all kinds of questions as to how the job is currently done that the l j should have at least minimally inquired of the vocational expert before finding that the claimant can actually perform these reflecting back you've been in this business for a long time to have the next word anywhere but about whatever changes there are but it seems that there is some focus here that vocational expert whether somebody with the limited math abilities of mr williams whether they could actually meet the requirements of the jobs in question every job has a mathematics requirement in these general education development in the dictionary like titles and it's possible that some jobs actually don't require person to use any math on the jobs and so the vocational expert could testify to that that although the dictionary  has a math requirement certain jobs actually don't require the ability to use math but again if you even look at the description of this transfer traverse ride  r it says the person might have to measure and cut the cork to assembled the rod well that requires some knowledge of inches or feet maybe even yards depending on how long mathematic one development level requires a basic knowledge of inches and feet and yes so the l j should have made that inquiry of the vocational expert really overall what happened in this case the l j asked the hypothetical question that locational expert said there were jobs a follow up asking about off task time and pace and then ended the hearing without doing any follow up to determine whether the vocational experts testimony was reliable another point that we raised while on the question of numbers of jobs because this court in several cases has questioned the reliability of locational expert testimony as to how they determine the numbers of jobs and then put this in in the briefs but in preparing for the argument i did a very quick calculation you know the vocational expert here said there were two hundred and twenty five thousand people employed assembl traverse curtain rods and just making up a number about conservative of a person had to assemble ten curtain rods in an hour doing the math for two hundred and forty days a year two hundred thousand people doing that job they'd be assembling over five billion curtain rides a year in the united states the other one of the other jobs here was i was packing gas masks and the eldest vocational expert said there were four hundred thousand people in this country packed in gas masks and again that should have given the l j pause ask further questions of the vocational expert but when you're doing repetitive jobs i don't know what else you call it it know that because the vocational expert wasn't wasn't asked there might be lots of different sizes your honor so a person might in the course of a day the making something curtain rods of different sizes so they would have to measure and each time please the court morning good morning your honors mr schultz ladies and gentlemen daniel robert genes on behalf of the commissioners your honor there's a reason mr williams doesn't want to talk to you today about the evidence that's because mr williams is twenty five years old in a high school graduate he wants to work every doctor in the record finds he can work and there's virtually no medical treatment for his impairments the evidence supports only one conclusion and that is that he is disabled the williams wants you to ignore the evidence and he wants to throw the kitchen sink  blooding what are no more than obscure technicalities that step five but these do not disturb the l g s decisions or any obscure technicalities whether that dictionary of occupational titles actually matches what he can do and can you address counsel's arguments about asking a ve whether these jobs forty years later still were quiet at the same acquirements or given the disparity in reasoning level or mathematical ability yes i can your honor and that is that there is no authority from this court that the l j needs to prove master's degree in vocational rehabilitation she's devoted her career to placing workers she knows her stuff williams just references his own interpretation of the deal to you and he's no more commit no more qualified than you are i on that matter those arguments boil down to thirty three dollars basic areas the st is development of the record and for him to prevail he needs to show a significant omission this court said in the case of gnomes that that significant omission was a two year of adventure again in ferguson a failure to ask about impairments and in other cases about outdated medical opinions and that's not the case here the l j sent mr williams for a nd consultation examination and he had a psychological psychological medical expert at the hearing who not only reviewed the evidence but actually asked mr williams not a conflict at step five because the mathematical development level of one requires requires you to add and subtract shoojit two digit numbers and to make change out of a dollar what is council table examination williams did just that he  and subtracted two digits numbers as constitutive examination in two thousand and eleven and his aunt said that he can count change which is higher than the mathematical developmental level of one which is just make change out of a dollar they recall because the star of c the l j doesn't need to definitively prove that williams can do this he just needs to show that a reasonable adjudicator could look at this evidence and agreed and in addition the record shows that mr williams was a high school graduate he passed all of his math classes and these were in the general education not in the special education except for one and he twice earned an a in economics by your honour's that is substantial evidence that supports that williams did have about a sixty four i q yes he did but there's also other evidence in the record as well he's a high school graduates he he performed he was able to do the math works we're talking not what his i q is but what is what are his math abilities here and the met it should also be noted that the d o t of the math development a level of one is the lowest level there's no math development level of zero there's no negative ma about the level and that's one of the problems with the deal t is the deal teeth simply outlines the it does not coincide in every aspect with the job and there's nothing in the three jobs listed at step five that suggest that he would need math abilities so the deal t outlines the maximum and it warns itself the deal t says we may not coincide with every aspect of the job and you should look to other sources and here they all day did just that he talked to the occasional expert in the occasional expert knew the math levels and found that mr williams c he's in with this the the regular students correct that's correct in math and math he said with the regular students in economics where he's earned an eight twice he's with the regular students so he only has two courses that  e reading the transcript shows that he was in special education the rest he's in regular general education courses who can read yes he kind of read in fact he testified that he enjoys reading enjoys reading history books and enjoys reading religious books and has for the reasoning development level there williams ignores that there's two hundred and sixty thousand jobs to be used in the development level of the one that you can perform two hundred and sixty thousand will be significant in any circuit in the nation here and now we're not conceding that raising development level of two is inconsistent with a simple one dollar to two dollars step tasks in fact to the extent that it would be an inconsistency it has to be an apparent one this court defines apparent conflict as so obvious that the l j would have picked up on it without direct sale j s to look at look at for other evidence such as a vocational expert which is what we had here now the other challenge that williams makes is the challenge of the dictionary of occupational titles and the occasional expert that's not true chavez held two things st it's had that when the has asked that they held a muscle licit a reasoned and principled explanation about the sources and data and it also said that intends no new obligations which is what mr williams wants you to find here today that dad dad and sources are presumptively invalid and that they must be rehabilitated no want to ask questions here at the hearing and there's nothing to show that the sources are dead at that the be relied on were unreliable and that this is not a case like in chavez where they were required for explanations and even then there was nothing to give the court assurance that the data was reliable no mr williams notes that that he did not have the opportunity to question the b even that's not entirely accurate and it's harmless otherwise because at the end of the hearing that and said hey can i say something and they'll jay said yes and she ended up directing her statement to the l j and not to be but even if that wasn't enough in his brief he repeatedly concedes that it would not have made a difference if you would say able to ask questions because he said he wouldn't have had to know so he forfeits the argument to remember that there is value in waiving an attorney the negative side is that the be that your attorney won't be able to grill to be eat but the positive side is six thousand dollars that could have gone to mr williams would have gone to his attorney instead for some claimants that's a year of rent for others that will pay off all the medical bills and all the outstanding credit card bills so there is a positive to to foregoing an attorney  in closing mr williams is twenty five years old he wants to work he wants to go work with his uncle at the city of chicago and every doctor in the record says that he can work in fact his aunt says he's a good worker he's had almost no medical treatment for his conditions for an l j to find him the stable tailgated has to set aside every opinion of the record and asked ignore that he basically has no medical treatment for his conditions to find it what counsel raises really are just nitpicky technicalities that don't show that are not conflicts because they're just challenges to the r f c and the one that might be considered a conflict the reason development level up to it washes away when there's two hundred and sixty thousand jobs within reason development a level one something he does not challenge the correct result here and the only result is to to the reliability of the vocational expert's testimony is true that this court hasn't yet ruled on what a nail j s obligation is in terms of questioning of ok tional expert for an unrepresented cognitively impaired claim  something we're asking the court to discuss and rule on in this case the claimant reads a th grade level your honor if you look at page three hundred and thirty six of the records it's actually confusing what classes the claimant was in the page and thirty six it says the claimant was tried it what they call it sees c t t class which is a class that has disabled and regular general students and the teacher said that mr williams was completely confused had no chance of passing his classes so he was put in a separate what about this whole he got to an economics he did get an a in economics there's something in the record i don't have the cite that actually shows he was on a different scale like i know a d d was from a forty two a fifty fo for the scale was was skewed for him i don't know what happened with those economic classes council talks about has been obvious error but that's in the overman case where the where the