t all it is asserting is that his classification of the jobs were correct is not making any assertion about the national numbers because the dictionary occupational titles does not deal with that arrived and you'll notice that there is no finding describing the methodology there nor is there a finding obviously that any methodology yields reliable numbers nor is the finding that the numbers are reliable so you're forbes i'm trying to think of cases with unrepresentative unrepresented claimants for disability where the dept of probing that you're calling for has happened to me when we know that social security cases and particularly the use of vocational experts isn't done say the way rule seven o two would be done in a regular court proceeding there's a more informal process i guess so i'm not sure where you're getting that strong a duty on the part of the a l j to essentially take law that has developed over the last couple years in the th circuit and in particular the chavez case or the a lower case and i think it's also shaped by the supreme court's case if the standard is that the l j must scrupulously explore for relevant facts and that the unrepresented claimant is not to be prejudiced or the lack  f counsel then i think there needs to be more than all that was done here is what are the numbers there are there is nothing behind the basis of these numbers and i have let a gated mid in these cases probably did anybody in in recent years i can't even reverse engineer these numbers to come up with a rational basis for there's nothing there for the court to review and the judges know that there are methadone logical problems everybody knows there are unless they reliable sampling in order to get at it at a greater number a nose and he has to know that because the courts know that the agency know that then  ially they the the administration the law judges engaging in gotcha we do we do it at a minimum have dislocations experts t v on the record right we know that this is a person who has some expertise in this area i would but well then the and then there's and that's another part of this but the bees have expertise in classification of jobs for the dia before the dictionary of occupational title and that classification process is important by their experience in placing people in jobs th not necessarily equipped to extract the late national numbers from sample lengths either small sampling a large sampling or large sample and the small sampling and u represented or do you think that there is a rule somewhere that needs to be asked no matter what well i think any attack tarney is that doesn't ask that question given the present state of the case law is probably bordering on not doing its duty i won't use the m word but and assuming that there are very few methodology that leads that have results and that's a pretty reliable assumption given the case law then i think that they ought at least ask and i probably wouldn't even brought this argument if the l g was obliged to question the vocational expert about the basis for that testimony mr winter argued argued that the eld it was obliged to do this questioning for him because he was unrepresentative hearing now st things  the vocational experts testimony constituted substantial lebanon when the when you know jay was considering whether mr wrenn or group could do other work it was the l james the commissioner's burden to produce such evidence and the carried out by obtaining testimony from a vocational expert could i ask you mr montenegran looking at now as they often do i mean this vocational expert singles out a few jobs food order clerk charge account clerk  polishing machine operator and this is a step five k so the burden is on the commissioner so how looking at this are we supposed to know whether there are really thirty four ow how do we how do we work with that well st thing your honor you know gene met the burden of producing evidence and as to whether that evidence is sufficient is a question of are substantial enough number of jobs in the national economy for a person with mr wrenn occurs residual functional capacity to be considered not disable things that he can actually do and if there really are still charge account clerk jobs and are thirty four thousand of them then my recollection of the law in this area use yes that's that's enough but some jobs disappear over time you know many quill pen manufacturers left and frankly there are not many people who did old fashioned bookkeeping of it's all done by turbo tax and that sort of thing so how do we know where the vocational expert came up with this number your honor the commissioner relies heavily on vocational information and the commissioner's policies add to that in the social security rulings i think my opposing counsel refer to indirectly socials could a ruling four p earlier that the vocational experts are or used to address also used with press complex folk a tional situations so as to the existence and numbers of jobs the commissioners relying on the expertise as stated in the regulations and policies as provided in the locational experts resume in this case and that's been upheld in the past as i pointed out in my brief as to whether there were any problems with the numbers themselves or i guess the existence of the jobs as well for the purposes in this case of showing that mr rennick or were somehow prejudiced by his lack of counsel i have to point out that despite his present disagreement with the vocational experts testimony he hasn't offered any argument with supporting evidence to show that the bouquet tional experts testimony was somehow wrong that there was some deficiency with it that the l g should have recognized that there was a problem there that might have caused the l j to question the vocational expert further let alone creating obligation for the occasional act for the l j it's a question of occasional expert there just isn't any evidence of prejudice or at least any evidence that the vocational expert's opinion opinion was somehow wrong the vocational experts testimony and the jobs that you just recounted your honor i would submit those aren't obscure or odd jobs food order clerk as rob in the dictionary bucket patient titles not that job obviously still exists relating with customers passing on food orders and buys in customers a charge account clerk although i don't know that people still use the term charge account the description is essentially one of a credit card clerk who might process applications and exchange credit information you say that a lot of worries me because i think a lot of that does really get done electronically and what i'm in of in principle worried about is how are we to know the difference between a vocational expert that just with no particular bases thinks that there are thirty four thousand dollars charge account clerk jobs left is that enough is not enough we would need to think about that your honor again the commission relies heavily on the expertise of vocational experts there's no reason to the record to doubt those numbers or to think that they were derived from old information while the dictionary talking they saying that it's ok for the l j to simply say for the vocational expert rather just say it's l j just trust me trust me i know that reason in the record to question those numbers other than mr wrenn occurs own arguments which are speculative and it's a completely out of the he'll you would say was too late and it's a little hard for me to see how without the ability to cross examine me you know mr wrenn occurs a lay person he doesn't know how many charge account jobs there are in the economy what's he supposed to do based on although i don't know that there's often questions about that it's usually evidence that you can matters of conflict and again if there were problems with the vocational information provided by the vocational expert say please explain where you got those numbers from just a routine i don't know if it might seem like a boilerplate question but it's really the commissioner considers these cases is highly individualized so if mr rennick or had a question he could have asked if he was asked by the l g at the end of the hearing whether he had any questions and he didn't have any and again if there really were a problem with the vocational information for vida by the vocational expert we haven't seen any evidence of that mr redeker hasn't submitted any evidence again his argument is based on his own speculation and assumption that the vocational expert lied i think he used the phrase  fabrication or georgia i hope act with no basis i think that strikes me as kind of the difference not necessarily a malicious lie that just sort of pulled a number out of the air well i don't think there was any suggestion i don't think anyone implied that there was any maliciousness just that there was no basis for it and a vocation elect vocational experts expertise itself i would submit provides the basis for those numbers and there's th numbers aren't i should point out they i don't think anyone's intimating pretending that they are exact numbers that the vocational expert has gone around and actually counted those jobs if there are numbers that are that up to date normal government statistics i imagine arts are calculated at that precision on a daily basis so the vocational expert i believe said that these were estimates that these were example jobs as you characterize them as if the numbers themselves you very much mr forbes you have thirty five seconds thank you there are i'm not going to get into my other three arguments because they relate basically to the the main argument but to how the numbers got there i think is an elementary set of relevant facts by a survey of a smaller population to a larger population some lay people can it some other form of balak a sion what ever there's it's if we're just going to accept gut feeling of a vocational expert or if we're just going to trust them a mister obvious for the problem was he kept insisting debian represent perhaps if you were there they really could have done a lot of the things that you the court kept warning in your own presented but he said you