morning barbara jones against commissioner could safely perform the residual functional capacity for the relevant adjudicatory period which her own agency's reviewing physicians appeared to conclude resulted in severe reinjured just a few months after the date last insured mr is correct that the date last insured is salient here the social security administration does not view the date last insured as the statute of limitations that a person intends to work after and sure does not preclude them from obtaining disability benefits prior to the date here the court has before it a unique circumstance where the claimant for the last insured attempted to work at the residual functional capacity yale jail met lee concluded she could during the relevant to you to judy could story period and in doing so the claimant totally ruptured her rotator cuff which she had had an operation on just months prior to the date last insured couldn't ask you a practical question mr richter i signed your stand your argument the vocational expert is st guess a question about the residual functional capacity that you're objecting to which i see i understand that the fifty pounds occasionally twenty five pounds frequently etc and past relevant work is ok under that r and then the a l j as i recall does say what if it's just twenty pounds occasionally ten frequently and the vocational expert says can't do the past relevant work but then as i understand your point there's a the record that this vocational expert doesn't in any kind of formal sense or at least the a l j doesn't move on to step five me ordinarily if you if you don't see step four satisfied you move on to step five and ask about the nash so i take it it's your position just as a matter of administrative regularity you've got to get that ruling out of the a l j is that right well so the l j prevented herself having to go to step five by jumping in that medium residual functional capacity i mean so it's possible if there were remand i don't know i'm not a mind reader but it's possible that moving on to step five if c really is lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally ten frequently there might be jobs in the national economy and there'd still be a finding of no disability it is possible your honor however the  that exist in the number fifty four thousand and this is furniture rental clerk and i'm sure that's that's correct your honor in hat had they gone with that se agency functional capacity it would have been her burden to demonstrate one that though that those numbers are supported by substantial evidence into she would have had to make a finding that fifty significant number in the national of an economy and at the said one rd of one percent is actually a pretty miniscule number and you think about it no evidence about the regional economy i take some sometimes they talk about and in this area there would be x number of these jobs they do sometimes your honor and that would have been one of the one of the avenues she were questions she would have asked most likely needed to get the could i mean you is there any problem in this record with the fact that we're assuming that these doctors opinions can be extrapolate backwards in time a bit because they come after the day list and sure now that happened i've seen plenty of cases where you can say this is what you'd like on this day but that condition takes a while to reach that point so insured and has an operation on it and then for a few months goes back to work at the residual functional capacity but the jail to mentally conclude she can she could perform during the relevant period and what happens is that she totally ruptures that rotator cup and the state agency physicians there look at the entire thing so they know they know she will actual work they know the the exertional requirements of the job in there so they're looking at it and concluding well the maximal safe functional capacity for this person to perform is light work with only occasional case for many is that the a l j doesn't say i'm just i'm not crediting opinion stamper twelve and three but i'd like opinion number four there is no opinion number four here so right and that's that's what we argue based on those  that line of cases that mckendree they can go inside the case that the the judge should've solicited that th opinion if she were going to overturn her doctor's judgments on the medical records that's something rotator and so what is that actually their maximum residual functional capacity i'm not sure there's any better evidence that it wasn't than the fact that the shoulder upshur when she attempted to it please the court my name is ryan schaefer and i represent the commissioner social security andrew saw as we've just heard this case is about a very limited period about a year between june tw and the end of june two thousand and fourteen and this is because mr jones was last insured for disability insurance benefit on june th two thousand and fourteen as a result ms jones had to prove that she became administrative law judge can say i don't like any of the medical opinions in the record and i'm going to make up a medical opinion of my own sure so addressing those two points way to november two thousand and thirteen with dr bailes who was her treating orthopedist in november two thousand and thirteen she had minimal complaints was doing really well and the examination findings were normal with respect to rotat or cuff strength and range of motion and dr bailes said that he did not need to see ms jones anymore unless she needed to come back and after that point there was no treatment no complaints and no normal sorry excuse me no of normal medical findings about her right shoulder through june th teen and for several months after until she reentered her right shoulder now a pivotal finding in this case l j repeatedly said that ms jones listed at least thirty five to forty pounds at her job in july two thousand and fourteen which is after the date last insured for several months so she was repeatedly lifting this amount page fifty seven of the administrative record as her testimony on this point she was repeating repeatedly lifting this amount without having any injury now  sure and needs to be supported by substantial evidence and i want to be clear about that but it doesn't have to be about the fact i mean she says the government relies very heavily on this comment of hers that she could live thirty five to forty pounds  they need to pay and yet they are imposing more on themselves and they have to sure so there are a couple of questions about the circumstances of adopted i can't remember from that piece of evidence whether she claimed she was lifting this large refrigerator unit all by herself or whether she's just one of two people who were lifting it or three people who were lifting it sometimes for heavy  mean so divide divide the weight up and it probably did not exceed well i again it's not part of the record i do know that some refrigeration units are in the hundreds of pounds but we don't know their point ultimately though and this is an area that there's been some confusion the ale jay found that ms jones could return to her past relevant work which included light work light work as you know is twenty pounds occasionally ten pounds frequently and light work is consistent with the past relevant work of gate guard and short order clerk and you know here's the problem with that the vocational expert said that as she performed her past relevant work it was at the higher level i can ask you know what about the lowers said you couldn't do your past relevant work so i really think that five i don't know that you can cling to step four there well the hypothetical was actually more than just a limitation to light work it involve vocational expert identified that such an individual and an individual with doctor montoya's and whitley's limitations such an individual could still perform other work  including sure and furniture rental clerk and this other work comprise more than fifty thousand dollars jobs in the national economy and so we're guard less of weather  as i said before the l g a his findings for the state agency opinions were supported by substantial evidence but even if we had questions about them the l j elicited testimony from the vocational expert that would lead to a firm and so they'll change decision because you have these other jobs sure and furniture once a clerk which ms jones could still perform  now one key finding in this case we talked already about ms jones's testimony about lifting at least thirty five dollars to forty dollars pounds for several months after the area waiting for forty pounds by itself would not preclude her being able to perform her past relevant work whether it's light or medium it doesn't make much difference on that issue  looking at the overall evidence here they'll j repeatedly noted that there were either minimal or no complaints during the relevant period between june two thousand and thirteen and june two thousand and fourteen they'll jay noted many normal examination findings and  l j adopted that reviewing physician residual functional capacity you know part of the harm here is that if she had adopted the doctor's residual functional capacity instead  of making her own medical judgments she would have had to proceed to step five where would have been her burden to demonstrate that the jobs that locational expert testified to were supported by substantial evidence  which there was you know contentious cross examination in a question of that in the in the hearing transcript and to she would have had to make a finding that one rd of one percent of the jobs in the national economy