not object to that she has limited to occasional use of the hands baled hay found that she could frequently use her hands and identified work that required frequent use of the hand the government and the district court both agree  fifty thousand jobs that the l g did not accept and this court has been very clear in extending and defining the chantry doctrine that the court reviews the decision it was actually made the decision that was actually made in this case did not identify the two occupations that the government intends satisfy the commissioners burden of proof step five i i think you be the need to identify the occupations would have alerted ruiz's counsel before the appeals council that he needed to address those occupations and as the supreme court recently stated v h s versus regions the articulation standards are not a meaningless exercise with the respect i do get that i do understand what i'm struggling with is this i see your point under our case law why it seems that we have to remember this but it seems like a whole only worth was actually side because all it's going to happen in my judgment is we're going to send it back the eldest and what i made a mistake i should have credited this expert and this is what it is and i reaffirm what i said before end of story just record agrees of what we accomplished ruiz would have the opportunity that she should have had it bills council the obligation that she should have had bills council to present rebuttal evidence to the occasional experts testimony as this court stated in shady versus very ill  claimants are uniquely unprepared to respond to the occasional expert testimony claimants are always surprised by the content of occasional expert testimony of airing and so if there's if the court remands this case can i think your point you would want to rebut that but i'm you know i just anecdotally i practiced law for a long time been on the court for a while and over the years i've seen lots and lots and lots and lots of legal secretaries and probably a quarter of them have our problems and no and sometimes they work pretty well sometimes they don't but it kind of comes and goes and just on the basis of legal secretaries the law there be a significant number of people who have it i feel sorry for your client don't get me wrong i just wonder how under the five step program how she qualifies with that particular disability or other disability that might be different but missing our desire to project our our worldview on to the rest of the what was happening that we've seen anecdotally under the rest of the rome is is a dangerous game to play your honor the reason for that is that the legal secretaries that we've seen  worked in an office in the world of work unskilled work is being legal sectors is pretty sophisticated work activity the work that she's  qualified to do is production and it's manual labor and people make their living with their back their hands or their brain we get to sit here and exercise our brain decision she's doesn't have those advantages she doesn't have the cognitive advantages that our legal secretaries of had she doesn't have the cognitive advantages that are currently girls have had she is this panel you know what alternate findings look like in a nail day is it is not asking too much to list five occupations instead of three it's not asking too much it's an important  on if you want that damn i think i can win i appreciate your advice and i hope you understand it my comment i understand that anecdotally i can't decide a case based on what i was just thinking with you out loud and try to get some sense of how useful as it is to send it back not that that that my view that what i've seen somehow controls it doesn't i understand i totally understand that council the morning your honour's i would like to confirm that you're able to hear my audio thank you good morning my name is shea bond and i am here representing the commissioner social security in this matter under the specific and unique facts of this case harmless error does apply and i would like to address a couple of things a counsel has said during his opening argument  is that that the old they did not accept the clerk and the baker worker jobs i think that's an inaccurate way to describe the old days decision the old suggesting that somehow the l g rejected those jobs which did not happen here they did not discuss at all statements from two family members who described mental limitations that when actually presented to the vocational expert the expert actually said there is no competitive work available so there are absolutely no jobs available here we have the very limitation that we're talking about which is the limitation to being able to occasionally hand for hand movements when that limitation was presented to r l ok tional expert that expert was able to identify over fifty thousand dollars jobs that would accommodate that limitation so that's why we have you know under the harmless error precedent the court is supposed to look at the specific facts of each case unique facts and so typically when you see other cases the evidence that wasn't discussed or was improperly rejected typically tends to support the claim that it's a disability claim and there is you know then a conflict is created with the record that there will be evidence in the record that says well those specific jobs but i would go back to talking about chancery was talking about the grounds invoked by the agency and so the grounds that the algae invoked here to find the claim that not disabled was at step five that we had vocational experts have the money that identified a significant number of jobs that would permit the work related limitations of the claim that had so those for the grounds for the decision the fact that there are additional facts in the record that will support the grounds that the algae already discussed i think at the heart of the application of harmless error here so we don't have a situation where  n and it was deemed that the magnitude in that season in that case was great because the limitations described could have impacted the disability determination and the finding of non disability and we there we have an answer that doesn't talk about all this evidence here we had an l j that was referencing be specific category of evidence that is relevant at step five and vote to vocational expert testimony the fact that we have there is absolutely nothing that contradicts our vocational expert testimony that there are over fifty thousand dollars jobs that would accommodate this limitation to  occasional hand movements and so it really would be fruitless to send this case back under a harmless error concept just for the l j to add in the decision say there are these additional jobs with the represented and shut and our client was represented at the hearing that those issues about vocational expert testimony and job numbers must be raised at the hearing before the ail j and if that does not happen then any any issues challenging those job numbers in a federal court it becomes forth that it so when counsel is saying that if you know sending this back that plane would have the opportunity to address these vocational issues at a new hearing that already happened claimant and the representative already had that opportunity did not take advantage of it and has forfeited a challenge then in federal court this court had said that because the claimants representative did not question vocational experts at the hearing that she already had that you cannot challenge the job numbers issue in federal court it is for so for claimant now to say well i you know my justification for saying that i should have a new hearing is that i could have an opportunity to question a vocational expert that opportunity has already occurred plaintiff did not take advantage not through her representatives so would be an insufficient basis to overcome application of harmless error here and again i would just emphasize that you know we do have a unique situation here where the evidence at issue that was not discussed in the elegies decision actually fully supports a nine disability term and so we're looking at the read the testimony that you say we should rely on here how do we know that how do we know that the l j would yeah would probably be all right because in this circuit twenty five thousand jobs is sufficient to establish a significant number of jobs and we have a vocational expert who is identified over twice that number that would accommodate see if we're looking at this evidence would it have made a difference to the disability outcome because we have such an overwhelming and uncontested vocational testimony establishing that there is over twice the number of jobs that this court has already concluded would be a significant number there is and i believe this is the language that's actually in style it says you know would it be would any reasonable alj a light come to a different disability conclusion and so the answer here would be no i don't see any a viewing our existing vocational experts testimony and saying well i'm not going to credit that it's just there is nothing there's nothing suggesting that that testimony is incorrect inaccurate it was an contradicted when you look at the vocational expert just in testimony she gave a very thorough explanation for why she identified the counter clerk and bakery worker jobs because she said like well because of these stiff ecl imitation to occasional him movements i have to row the job base and here's how i did it so we have a very thorough analysis by the ale j in express lane in response to the question posed by the vocational expert actual ale's a decision and why is the supreme court last term reversed agency determinations because the articulations were not sufficient and i recognize that the h s vs regions and  the rebuttal evidence that she could have or would have presented at the appeals council and she did not warn that this was the basis of the a decision