please lindsay craven for plaintiff appellant jeffrey barnes the most important issue here in this case is whether the record as it is currently supports a finding that there are jobs that exist in significant  national economy that mr barnes is capable of performing the judges to decision on the four corners of the decision does not have substantial evidence to support that he is capable of performing the two semi skilled jobs that were identified  step five because the job judge failed to make any kind of findings regarding acquired skills that he got from his past work so if we agree on that then the next question is why does it matter and do the grid rules and the medical guidelines provide alternative decision so we maintain that they do not because mr barnes is r f c was so limiting with the additional factors other than just the fact that he is limited to sedentary work within the whole paragraph or following additional limitations make the grid rules in a political so while they provide a framework in terms of people that are able to do the full range of sedentary work they do not apply to this case in particular because of the all the additional limitations that he has which means that the judge has to consult with a vocational expert in order i don't apply to get me right there it's not that they don't apply right they don't dictate an outcome correct think that case us as direct a noun right so they apply as a framework but then you've got to talk about the non exertional and we're going to talk about transferable skills as well right but it's not that they don't apply just think of it differently and yeah they 're kind of the broad starting point ok the jumping off point but when and especially if you look at the six nine eight that goes through a lot of the scenarios where when you're starting with the broad base of sedentary unskilled jobs when you start to add additional limitations it starts erode the occupational base and the point of the grid rules and that phrase a road based means there's fewer jobs in that subset that he can do right exactly ok so the grid rules provide are basically the agency taking administrative notice that there are seven terry jobs so if we don't have to consult with a vocational expert every time the person is limited to sedentary work so he does not answer the question because you findings about transferable skills had to be made it's that if the job wants to deny the case with semi skilled job obs then there need to be finding that he has some skills that allow him to do those jobs those skills never  perfect sense to me but has the case law been consistent about the need to make those findings regarding transferable skills or is it inconsistent there is a little bit of inconsistency about what has to actually be written in the judge's decision so in bray they found that the those findings need to be in the decision there was one case that that in the way wasn't at the government's position that there need to be those findings in my understanding from reading brady is that the government's position was that the findings didn't have to be made and that the court said that that is completely inconsistent with what's written in our eighty do you want if in this case because race could be relied upon to find that there was actually a disability pursuant to the greats correct you don't have that here correct and that makes the difference between what the ale jay must do dealing with the situation that we have here they have to be some specific findings on the issue transferability to have it right or wrong sorry say that again you need to seventy five see if they did not make any specific findings about transferability in this case correct and the important distinction in this case from i believe it was dennis is that the location expert also did not testify about any transferable skills so if the vocational expert had testified about transferable skills and the judge just failed to write it down in the that's very different situation than what we have here which is no testimony nothing in the record that he has acquired skills that allow him to perform this job these jobs and also i think we understand your argument let's hear from the government ok ellsbury i'm here for the commissioner so it does come down to transfer ability or skills and when the laws need to be determines the burden of proof disability is the claimant up through the fifth step and at the fifth step the commissioner has the responsibility to show there are other jobs in significant significant numbers in the national economy that that he can perform the day did that here and there's two ways the l j can prove ability is done only when you're looking at whether the plane as it is either not disabled or disabled into the grips raised to bray but here he you can't really conclude from the grids as to whether he was was not disabled or put another way he was not disabled under the grid's unlike the brachis exactly all options all options were disabled or not disabled whether it's transferable skills no transferable skills or unskilled and that is the critical part about brain because the brain had an advanced age individual with identified you're losing me with your argument because i thought the requirement under the regulations was if the jobs are semi skilled the grids are just a starting point and you can't use the griots to determine whether or not there are jobs that this claimant can perform there needs to be some discussion of  skills remain because if a semi skilled position you have to make a determination of what skills are there and that's what i think that it's missing in this record ok help me so maybe this will help the grids look seven other district court organ in each case has found there is no requirement that the health findings that the claimant has semi skilled break that down that the somebody gets on the stand and he's or she is a vocational expert and has background in this area and knows factually and in this case you know what jobs this individual filled in and nothing more just vocational expertise that's according to regulations i was just just divorced from the facts of the case we're talking about what what what skills this particular individual possesses are not of the stage no we are at the grids and then you to make a determination whether transferable or not and there was no transfer ability finding made here because it was not material well you have a social security rule i think eighty two days forty one which i think says that  because what eighty two forty one says is when a transferability of skills determination must be made then the l g a must meet these findings and we don't have to make a transfer ability finding here because what because it's not material material to finding a disability because with unskilled skilled not transferable or skilled transferable all the indications because of the youth of the claimant indicate not disabled so that it's not material to finding disability to do are the jobs that he can still perform but there is no finding that he has the skills to perform those jobs i'm missing something i can see  appears to be a non sequitur on the first level there is no requirement under the regulations or the rulings that the l j make a finding that the individual can do these positions for example let me reference judge papped in one of the to the facts of this case judge pap noted as our ruling state the lower level of semi skilled in some of those positions like chauffeur or room where i believe with examples he was there are no skills really developed so to say that you need skills to do so my skilled job when there are no skills that you couldn't obtain from that in other words if you were looking at one of the goods and shelter was your job semi skilled but not transferable skilled jobs but then not take that next step to say and he has these skills to do those jobs and i think part of the confusion part of the confusion comes from the two phases have been blended in the argument as i said you have the grid phase and that's when you need to look at the past relevant skills and whether they're transferable or not and we all agree i believe that the grids are not political here because there's a she identify semiconductor assembler and production clark so your example of a chauffeur doesn't really translate to that because these appear to be so my skill positions for  has to be or there would need to be some identification of the skills that would transfer to these particular positions how do we know that he has the skills to be a semiconductor assembler or production clark if no one has identified the skills that he had and we have no idea what those are by the way exactly why him is not comparable to the low level sedentary positions that you were describing where we all know what it takes to deliver a room service been raised as a distinguished case because of a different age and the fact that there was an indication of disability in the in the guidelines it was decided july i'm sorry february tenth there were believe i think it's clear that that panel distinguished the differences between bray and bell shire and in bell shire i believe they also found there was no need i believe because i read so many of these cases like i said there are seven dischord cases in and two nights are cases where they under these exact facts past semi skilled work grids don't apply because they're not material testifies to semi skilled work no discussion been consistent in this regard i'd like to ask you the same question one hundred percent consistent i could not find a single case with this fact scenario where any court found that the l j had to make a finding about semi to tell me a strong is case again for the proposition that the ve does not have to testify about transferable skills when it's a semi skilled position like when say my skill positions identify and know senator because i've seen the cases where there had been said terry positions identify and semi skilled positions identified and because they're the senator positions were in the mix there was no shari's and publish this is well i would also add to bell shire and the minimal amount of information that is available in the in the decision it doesn't say what the r f c was and it also does mention that there were unskilled jobs identified so without knowing all the content of the whole record it's hard to draw that parallel though the one main point that i want to make is that the judge did not have to deny this case with semi skilled jobs the with the grades acting as a framework as my opposing counsel said all options were not disabled that is not true because while the framework of the grids would direct not disabled for somebody was sedentary the grid's do not direct an outcome in this case because of the incredibly limiting nature of the r f c my corrected there's no specific precedent that's exactly like this case which addresses the issue when specific findings must be made dealing with transferability i have not been able to find anything that is precisely the same as this based on the fact that available just three published decisions the othe so the point that i wanted to make was the judge could have denied this case by done a fine unskilled jobs he was not required to make transferability findings that he had to benefit unskilled jobs that fit this r f c and that is something that we do not have on this