yes it is never a race and a good morning your honors i'm george wall representing this race and in the so security matter i'd like to reserve five minutes for a bottle certainly never raised and was working as a food demonstrator at costco when she slipped on some grease felt landed on her left shoulder had to shoulder surgeries that never allowed her to recovery much use of her left arm i had subsequent abdominal and going to logical surgeries with complications that have left her with chronic pain and has not worked since two thousand and four the sole remaining issue in this case is whether her past work as a food demonstrator could be performed by her within the hypotheticals posed b administrative law judge the clerk asked me to comment on the mirror and to terrorists and i don't think that was really directly apply here except that the g had the duty and still has the duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence when there are apparent or obvious conflicts between the job the job description and addiction occupational titles and i think that's the key issue but otherwise i think there are error throughout the record that were not addressed the particular first of all the d o t code number that the vocational expert provided was for advertising material distributor not for food demonstrators so the d o t code is incorrect from the start  the agency was correct in the den to find the d o t for food demonstrator but not the occasional expert then throughout the questioning of the vocational expert which was fairly difficult to follow any evidence in the record saying that the third thing is the statement but they all day of her of the residual functional capacity is conflicting it says this individual can lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently with the right upper extremity and or both extremities but is limited only seven pounds with their left under extremities she can do no repetitive lifting the two inconsistency is in that are to first say they could she can lift twenty pounds occasionally twenty pounds frequently with with and or both extremities and then then to say she could do no repetitive lifting which is is conflicts with saying that she can live frequently so that is another piece that was not addressed the other problem was the cases the judge rejected dr bowman's restrictions from any reaching dr bowman was also limited her reaching not just overhead the judge only that limiter reaching overhead which it is inconsistent with those with those restrictions relying on a d d s physician who did not have those records in front of him when he made his estimate over work work work restrictions claim it was injured in two thousand and four heard it last i'm sure it was a two thousand and seven the hearing wasn't held till two thousand thirteen so we were hamstrung by the fact that she didn't have health insurance or lot of period question and only had medical treatment for extreme conditions including her her shoulder and her abdominal surgeries so th was very difficult to get evidence that far in the past but if you rely on her testimony about the pain she is it was in both and before two thousand and seven and at the time of the hearing we did ask you to find her that she's limited to center work and would meet the what medical vocational role to a one point one zero you good morning your honor is michael howard for the commissioner honors reason told the l j that her pain was so severe that she could not clean her house and that she could not walk for even one hour after local mall but earlier she told her treating doctors that medications relieved her pain that she could handle household chores and care for grandchildren and by the end of the relevant period she was preparing to return to work given these facts recently found she could return to her past felt relevant work as a food demonstrator she did not fill out in she filled up most parts of it she did not fill out every single part to not fill out a long narrative description or anything along those lines but we also have the the characterization of what this job was by the vocational expert i think we have to view that as part of the l g step for finding even if it's not as actually performed finding we the l g is understanding that this is what this occupation is and what is opinion i believe the l t does refer to it as a food demonstrator job and cites her work history report also at the hearing with plaintiff and with racing and her attorney present the l j indicated i believe i know what you did in that job given your work history report and i'm paraphrasing the hearing i believe that's a page thirty one of the excerpts of record and even though there was questioning by the l j and the claimants attorney about the requirements of different past jobs there was never any dispute by grayson as to the requirements of she never disputed what she said earlier in her work history report about this food demonstrator job so so this is these are the basic piece of the pieces of evidence on this issue and as this court recognized in the pinto v mass and ari case the social security regulations name two sources of information that may be used to define a claimant's past relevant work as actually performed a properly completed cation report and the claimants own testimony so here we have the l j relying on the work history report as as is contemplated under the agency's regulations argument that the plaintiff racing has raised that seems a bit hard to believe because we're in her work history report she's indicating that the job is standing she just says it's a standing job whereas when she describes her commendations elsewhere in the record her combinations after her slip and fall accident she's saying that she was doing a seated job so it's a she doesn't appear to be describing these this as an accommodating position and also when we look at the first page of the work history report she's referring to the date range where she worked there the entire date range the same two thousand and one to two thousand and four and this is what i didn't this job so so given it was allowed to rely on that work history and just to briefly touch on a statement made by a recent attorney today that the the code given from the dictionary occupational titles did not apply to this job but there was that was identified an error i believe respondent to that in our brief but just to reiterate the dictionary occupational titles when it has a code for an occupation that refers to a number of jobs that could fall under that same made by reasons attorney that those don't do not they do not directly show any error in this case essentially that for instance the limiter case was concerned with someone with limitations on the use of their hands that conflicted with the d o t description for that job and we just don't have that situation here experts testimony is not specifically required to support a step for finding so here we have the expert testimony identifying what this job is and that was useful testimony for the l j but the elder did not need that that expert the then go and say she could do this job is actually performed that was not legally necessary to the decision unless the court has further questions your honor as i deal the remainder by time ok thank you very much counsel years after her accident she notes that that during that time she was doing light duty with no use of her upper extremity and she described his job as having to lift thirty pounds plus push pull fifty pound carts a cart swing fifty pounds or more standing for hours without a break no sitting and carrying thirty pounds plus using her hands for repetitive motion including cutting cooking scrubbing pots and pans peeling fruits cetera so that's the extent of the information we have s a job description this race and was performing as a food demonstrator but that would put it clearly into the medium reach well above the light range and well above the restrictions l j posed so they'll jay did not address that and that's the key is how this record was not developed as to what the duties record yes i am i think the records very garbled and that would be the best outcome in another question i have is in anywhere in this record did ms razan claim that both arms were that she was experiencing pain or limitations in both arms or was it always just her left arm it was always her left non dominant arm there was that were no complaints about her right arm at all thank you thank you thank you very much thank you both very much for your argument this case this matter submitted