necessary to get the money and to see it for it in significant numbers in the national economy the public would be capable of performing after receiving this testimony from the vocational expert upon for preventative question the source of the numbers   i believe that something along the line well it's a not insignificant number of occupations that fall with in that industry now the numbers that we submitted showed that that entire industry had nine thousand one hundred and ninety nine positions total while the vocational expert testimony showed twenty five thousand jobs in that one single occupation lens and server testimony at the right but that's just my point isn't the real dispute here between you and ale j it wasn't over the numbers the numbers were roughly the same especially when you factor in the margin of error that the real dispute was how submitted the report itself we could have seen with that information did inhale and we could have made that determination ourselves or the a l j could have from what we could actually see in that report so there were additional options but could have been done it your position that we just don't know how many lives inserter jobs there are in the national economy i noticed that there was some calculation done but from the record i'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that question is that accurate is it that is one of the issues that was raised with that between the direct contradictory evidence that we put in along with the judge's rebuttal there is no way to know what that actual number is without additional divisional expert stake the court held you you cannot rely on just the documentation from these websites because they do not contain all the material all right the locational expert's testimony because the vocational expert as i understand it said there were twenty five thousand men and i'm guessing that you are going to concede that lens inserters are a subset of the what it w seems to me needs to explain to us explain on the record in a way that we can meaningfully review as to why the reliance on the twenty five thousand figure for the overall industry is somehow irrelevant to the credibility of the with all due respect your honor i think there is a false promise underlying this situation and that is is the case all experts testimony of twenty five thousand  no direct contradictory evidence one because the evidence rely relies on the census bureau not to be allowed not of the thirteen pages submitted refer to regional or state numbers and the issue here is national numbers the l j did reference the b l s as counsel represented in a generic manner but he need to do no more consistent stripey it's only the dot that requires the dictionary of occupational titles that are based on material inferences and data not contained in the document so it doesn't provide a foundation for contradicting locational expert statute and the case law is also quite clear that nothing more is needed noted the evidence doesn't relate to issue being disputed they're arguing that there are twenty five thousand dollars jobs but they're not presented any evidence that there's less or more or that the vocational experts decision is undermined she not only so that she vocational expert testified to my response to going out would be this was resolved where as i mentioned before the court said there is just too much information and inference was in those documents us to be able to rely on that so while it is indicative of suggest though i would say there is no foundation for that evidence there you can make an assertion but if you don't support it and here it's unsupported if you don't support it rebut the vocational testimonies and therefore he decided to look that is the judge made the determination on that foundation and then after that he decided to rely upon evidence that there is no way to verify where well it might be the case that we do not have the citation and so we submitted the actual paperwork the report itself and the judge did not