this case asked the question whether if occasional experts testimony that's inconsistent with the d o t inconsistent with the ruling eighty two forty one and inconsistent with a later published policy interpretation of the operative transferability of skills regulation can nonetheless constitute substantial evidence which nail j could rely in finding that peter seltzer could make people cation adjustment with little or no vocational adjustment in terms of tools and work processes from being a claims examiner for the general public battling insurance companies to being the claims clerk in the the vocational expert suggested in one passage that she had looked at the work fields for the the past work and for the the target occupation the claims clerk one occupation it turns out that the work fields are in fact different they are different in terms of what they do and and where  it and so the failure to to own the inconsistency in terms of the work fields by the vocational expert and the failure of dale j to ask about consistency but the failure to own it of transferability of skills and we and then we see that after this case was originally briefed on the opening brief the commissioner issues a policy interpretation of the of the regulation that that highlights exactly that the work fields are a critical component of the vocational transferability of skills analysis and i know that this court has suggested that palm's is not a that so it wasn't clear to me from the briefing what in the d o t description of the claims adjustor job that's inconsistent with the way the expert  testified i don't think that the vocational expert miss characterize the nature of the claims court what she did was mis characterize the essential job functions of the claim for job in terms of attributing it to being a very little if any vocational adjustment from the occupation of the claims examiner type of work that mr seltzer had performed in the past i don't reason i asked that question is that one of the arguments just the way the ve testified was in accurate the way the conflict arises only when we take the commissioner at her word that we're supposed to look at work fields and in the twenty eight j letter we reproduce the west version of the o t s for these two occupations and the work fields are are different the claims clerk has a work field of two thirty one which is verbal recording and record record keeping as the essential job function but mr seltzer's occupation had a different work field which is to seventy one investigating so he's going to go from being an investigator to a record keeper that's a significant difference in terms of his work duties but he didn't submit didn't the v a just simply  that is what exactly what she said so why can't the rely upon that testimony the the general consensus in the industry is to use wor investigator and change occupations to a record keeper and that that constitutes little or no vocational adjustment she needs to the vocational expert is under an obligation in the massag to identify self identify the conflict and to explain the conflict and the vocational expert in this case was clearly aware of the use of work fields because she mentioned it's transcribed as worker fields in the in the record but she clearly knew that work fields was was the the component the the hinge on which this door swung and didn't own and didn't explain it she only gave her conclusion and it isn't the can well leave a situation like this where somebody has worked in the same industry for thirty plus years isn't the specialized knowledge and the fact that the claims clerk is in the same industry those facts were a family larch in the analysis don't they well if if mr seltzer had worked for the insurance company as a claims adjustor i think that would be true but he didn't he worked in private industry he went to businesses and homes of people that involve and been involved in catastrophic loss of real property and represented those individuals against the insurance company it isn't that he worked inside the insurance company's building and he's making the judgment from the investigator to the clerk job he's coming from outside and making an adjustment into the into the insurance company so he has thirty years of experience but i would be suggesting that some of his plaintiffs p i to work as a claims clerk for the insurance company i think that needs an explanation and the conclusion is not an explanation it's just a conclusion in this court has consistently held that conclusory statements are are not very weighty they need an explanation and that this is a special need an explanation in light of the fact that the the the commission has has construed the regulation consistent with plaintiffs arguments i reserve the last minute of my time ok that's fine thank the v then testified what skills the appellant obtained from his prior job and then with the help of claimants attorney they went through each of the the provisions set forth in the regulations which set forth that for an occasionally profile that the skills he'd have to have very little if any adjustment in terms of work processes work settings industry or tools and then with with the vocational expert could do his job when he worked as a public adjuster and then working as a claims court to be specifically addressed that question the v said that that that should appellant switch sides in sort of the insurance field that requirement that that when determining whether an individual estranged will skills they have to satisfy there has to be very little of any adjustment in all four of those different sort of subsets that once to be testified and they'll be relied on that and then they all joined that has been a fight to what position those skills are transferable to the l j again satisfied that obligation to forty one so to the extent that the l g had to all operate on on you know on the transfer poe's additionally enforceable duties on the l j and the court but beyond that this is your work field is is not is not accurate because to the extent of the palms a lab or a tz on on what is necessary previous sort of work and work fields as one of a non exclusive list of options one of the another option is for example is looking at the occupational group in the d o t in this case the occupational group for both the claims adjuster position claims court position is exactly the same the viz testimony that set forth in both the regulations and the agencies were ones and in his case the did so and for that reason substantial evidence supported the as a suspicion that mr seltzer was not disabled and we respect you order to have little or no vocational adjustment the individual needs to be able to walk into the workplace and with a minimal amount of orientation be highly proficient at the occupation that's what should really eighty to forty one says and the occasional expert concedes that he's going to need a little bit less than thirty days of to figure out how to use the computer there's no evidence in the record that suggests that mr seltzer even knows how to type he told mr blatchfor vocational expert that unum hired that that he was trained by his grandfather to use a pad in a pan the old fashioned way mr salter is going to have to walk in and under eighty to forty one need to demonstrate high proficiency after minimal orientation and teaching how to use a computer is not minimal orientation even if it takes thirty less than thirty days because every case where we have transferred transfer ability the person has to meet the requirements that job but meeting isn't little or no vocational adjustment little or no vocational judgement is a high degree of proficiency with minimal orientation and thirty days is not minimal orientation minimal orientation show and do