our nd case for argument this morning is morrison again so with the administration log judge's findings unless judge easterbrook wants me to go through the standard of review for how we get on that you can allocate your time as you are right thank you although i do have a procedural question for your share do you have any response to the district court's reasoning in this case my clerks and i checked your brief in this court appears to be a verbatim copy of your filings in th court generally things specter warriors when they appeal from the district court to the court of appeals to address the grounds on which they've lost right and your brief doesn't even mention the grounds in which you  different way right the submission you made to the district court has already been evaluated by a judicial officer and found to be inadequate why would you just repeat it rather than try to do something better so i do the best i can and i try to present you with the arguments that i think are most compelling but the next time perhaps i will do better the  point is that at step two the administrative law judge identified as severe impairments major depressive disorder if the government is correct in this case or if the district court is correct and the ala dave did not believe there were any limitations  concentration persistence and pace then those two impairment should not have been included in step two and identified as severe impairments it's quite simple in a way to  rrange an opinion so that the residual functional capacity is ordered in a manner that is consistent and in this case it's not if you look at the residual functional capacity the i'd i'd i do not see any limitation related to concentration versus or pace what limitations are you suggesting should have been included in the hypothetical based on the record based on the record and on the ale j's reasoning in describing the limitations as moderate it would be that this claim it cannot concentrate in an unskilled setting for the two hour  mental health treatment the fact that he was provided mental health treatment and i if i got to you know they're able to make some decisions and the l j should be stuck moderate and then this residual functional capacity does not have a limitation in their adult if that's the way d l day if cloth there should be limitation a close as he it and it looks like he's talking about simple instruction but it's not because simple instructions are lesser included in detailed instructions so what this l j is saying is that this claimant can't do a job with one of the five step detailed instructions which does not  sound like it skilled in it and a few does not does not sound like it's unskilled this is a limitation that says you can do skilled work or it's an illogical limitation the extent this is a do novo determination let me address the arguments that morrison has presented to the extent that the argument is that there is no limitation in the residual functional capacity that addresses the moderate limitations in maintaining and concentrating persisting in maintaining pace i think a little background may be in order to what exactly it means to have a modern limitation for an basis so the fact that they're found a moderate limitation means that it's something between slightly limited and if it was only slightly limited dale j would have found a mild limitation and mark limitation which would be seriously limited so it's something in between and the mere fact that the finding is moderate does not does not direct a specific outcome in the residual functional capacity that is a question of substantial evidence in the record in completing tasks he discusses the consultative exam in which he showed some difficulties with tension hour and with him and with memory but also the examiners opinion that even with those limitations he would be able to learn new vocational skills and and would have and be able to do at least simple work and that was that was what that was what led  reviewed the evidence and specifically also testified that the evidence supported moderate limitations in this area but also it should also translated that into the residual functional capacity finding that this claimant despite the modern limitations is able to do so not only just simple instructions but also detail but only limited up to fifty five dollars steps is there any dispute that the vocational expert was present during that testimony no are and i was i was just about to adjust that point because this distinguishes it from other cases because the vocational expert was present for there not only for the review of the evidence through the medical expert but also through this opinion testimony so there can be there is it's contradictory or not supported again it's supported by the by a medical expert testimony it's addressing both simple and detail it is a limitation it's limiting him to only only five steps not the full range of detailed instructions and based on the medical expert testimony and the jays explant explanation in the decision addressing the medical evidence is fully supported by the evidence factors no single one was dispositive but taken together they they formed a reasonable basis for the l j to find that the morrisons allegations were and statements reached regarding his symptoms were not supported by the the factors that go to that are the activities of daily living and the failure to pursue specialist treatment and specifically in this case with regard to pain but those are separate issues but they also self wasn't clear to me  that she specifically considered that and dr rosenfield testified that she did not take that into consideration yes your honor the psychological expert testified to the medical to the medical evidence it was up to the ael j to consider the symptoms and the pain and the ale jape i've i don't know that i can point to a specific place in the decision where she specifically said i'm a i consider pain in this regard but for example the the reason i bring up for example failure to seek treatment is in the diff reading the decision as a whole and the evidence as a whole morrison was receiving pain medication from a primary care provider he was there's no contemporaneous reports that this is not controlling his  he was referred to a pain management provider did not follow up on that so that line of reasoning addresses reasons to believe that the that the pain was not as severe as here as he alleged similarly with the activities  don't necessarily prove an ability to work but the what dale j's considering is they don't really line up with those allegations that he made it to hearing so my reading of the decision is that the decision as a whole just his pain as one of the symptoms of the old days considering along with the other he psychiatric symptoms there's no other questions are that's all i have thank you counsel anything the hypothetical and then answer the question there's a lot of evidence in this case both ways and are left with the decision the day made and in order for it to meet the substantial evidence standard the reasoning has to be logically connected to the findings and that's the essence of the argument in this case that was the essence of the argument and your you started with joe's pick then disability attorneys will not know which cases should be appealed it or which cases should not because in essence it's it's all going to be about looking at the evidence and reshaping it at least that's my perspective  guy worked really hard at hard jobs for a long time and so to say that his  that that ought to count for something and that's why we have the the doctrine of that has to work history and i'm well aware of the limitations of the doctrine but