motionless play it could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy if you apply this court's precedent from chavez and brace the answer is no and hearing them occasional expert was asked to provide the source the nature of the o e you or any reliance with an opportunity was extended to actually brief the question and that was never done well so that you then l j considered the objections that i'd like to accept required or the claimant is required to develop the argument more than what was done which is to note the objection to don't line exactly the problems and to cite the proper his it shifts the burden of experts test well and there's a good question about that and what is required as of thursday we now have the car decision from the supreme court which if you look at the bill the burden of proof in this  don't let me let me ask the court that the same question in a slightly different way when i read the transcript of the proceeding before the l j there there's two things that i come away with you object that on the basis that the equal distribution method has been applied and you pointed to chavez and in substance the l j said i have no idea what you're talking about and then said there will be an opportunity for post hearing briefly you know as well as anybody how busy a o'jays are that window  open for you to articulate on your client's behalf your objection with some particularity and you didn't do so so it we don't have a transcript here that shows us that the l j even understood the objection and there was nothing your client did to fill that in so how can we call that legal error ale j by the decision indicated that she read the decision and i guess what the question is alternately is what is the responsibility of the plaintiff in these proceedings to outline  claimants residual functional capacity falls in between the rules that ok tional expert has to be available to testify if the claimant realizes that there is no one vocational expert in called at the he plans detriment to express exactly what their responsibilities are and i will and i don't know that we're talking about a big grand issue like that i think all we're talking about is a modicum of diligence and you were invited were you not to submit a brief articulating your objection you didn't send anything in correct so if and i guess that's the that is what i'm saying is the ultimate issue in there is what exactly is required because if more is required then when i did then it's my position that it shifts the burden of proof from the commissioner to claimant because l j read the decision given all the windows are open all right and this is our problem and this place here but he then puts you this way one seconds well if you get your face very close to the camera that might go is this better  rely on and it was the dictionary of occupational titles which the agency's regulations administratively notice dr strong also discloses method the equal distribution method and uses nearly a decade of experience to determine that there are over half a one million jobs the  holding chavez very very hell and effectively invalidated the equal distribution method coyer rested on it that objection and never submitted a postering brief despite on multiple occasions saying she would do so that objection did not show anything to show that vocational testimony was unreliable otherwise cast doubt science so the elgin did what any l j would do she rejected that objection as it was presented because it was based on a flawed basis now as we say in our brief this is the correct result in an essentially the case begins and end an objection based on the false premise rejected it and that's really all there is to this case but even if you go past that corner and did not on earth or even attempt to wonder if a single shortcoming to the vocational experts testimony and instead korea's logic that if you say i don't like vocational experts data and sources this would somehow be enough to undermine that testimony and as the district court said this gives no indication of what the l j would be expected to ask her to fix and if the court were to side with  or jayson lower courts would have no idea what needs to be proven to show reliability and because this was just a general objection to the equal distribution method and not fact specific in any way it's essentially going to just invite the same testimony to be recycled throughout every case so a quarter is going for here is if you can make the big hole and find that the equal distribution method is presumptively invalid and this would be the wrong holding for several reasons st it would be a monumental and sweeping holding requiring that l j rehabilitate occasional testimony when there is no flaws shown to that testimony this would go against be stacked a supreme court case that came after chavez that held that the l j can accept the vocational experts testimony without significant as and the case that encourage claimants to that testimony for errors this would go against your holding in chavez which said that the court intends no new obligations and while this court has criticised the equal distribution method in dict this court or no other court has found the equal distribution method invalid second your honour's that l j step five burden is not limitless and that's what chavez what coyer is affecting the axing you to do is find it's limitless remember the burden here the burden is to show a significant number of jobs and it's not it's tickly accurate number that's going to be published in a journal or so it's either the number is significant or it's not significant and indeed other circuits have recognized that this is a limited burden it's one that shifts back to the claimant once met and then the it's up to the claimant to show meaningful uncertainty mr jarvis where does the commissioner stand in its project to replace the dictionary of occupational titles so i have their website is updated and i know that porter said in the br wave of five year update and that the bureau of labor statistics will publish the data from the initial year of the nd wave so they're in the data collection process till they've been collecting over five years and comparing each year and so there's they're still in the process of creating that system still in the process that began in two thousand and eight that's correct your honor it's taken them a lot longer i think than they intended but you can understand why because if they are you know they released a new system and then it's flawed and there's big issues with it and so the cepheid is so important in so many of these cases that that a change like that could result in really delayed to all the claimants as well so i think they're taking their time perhaps more time than anybody ever imagined or want it but they're taking their time in developing that system your honor is yes this is kind of top five burden is not limitless in this court has actually provided provided  the claimant pressed be vocational expert four times for an explanation of why two different methods produce such disparate results and when the vocational expert cannot provide a plausible explanation the court remanded in grace the vocational experts answers were unintelligible the court no serious issues with the reliability of the data th runner's quarter points out the occupational employment quarterly uses an equal distribution bet that the runners that's a fact that cuts both ways because this court has called occupational employment courtly a footnote five which says for other claims that are more routine something would likely be like this step five case here the scales may tip differently but in indiana your honor that actually doesn't matter and it won't really affect this case because our argument here is that quarter i don't know of any basis in law i don't know of any basis in case law that says that the burden shifts we have what was normally in the situation we have testimony we had  had an equal distribution method and it is per se by chavez questionable not and it needs to be wiped out it's per se questionable and as in the fact that it's questionable at that point the hayes lays out what needs to be done and it just wasn't in this particular if if if the court is saying that the bush ifs that's fine at least we'll know what is necessary if the court is indicating that we have to do more than that i guess i understand the point but the question ultimately is whose responsibility it is and under that we have a situation where the ministry of law judge who said she read the case and can easily see it we're not talking about a novice an l j she said she read the piece and she didn't follow up on ask anything about whether the testimony was reliable whether he believed that the testimony was based on some fact whether he had some national labor market study of shown the test or that evidence was reliable or that it was to the limited testimony which is what was done and at that point it's the burden on the commissioner to go forward and stand which l j is in hearings on a regular basis now especially with my office don't even wait that's all we're asking for in most of those pieces because that's done it gives us an opportunity to go forward and ask the right questions to pull but i can't prove if there's nothing done by the commission or it's