testimony and the dictionary of occupational titles and three nail j failed to explain how she reached her conclusions as to mr billow does residual functional capacity mr billow to completed the  pages i've sixteen to five hundred and twenty in testing by the commissioner's own expert establish that his oral language broad reading broad written language and written expression skills where t kindergarden level or below and the excerpt concluded that mr billow that was illiterate the ale j in this case did not reject the opinion that he was illiterate only that he she only rejected that he had a the commissioner defines illiteracy as the inability to read or write a lack generally in individuals such as mr billow who have little or no formal schooling that's it twenty c f r four  and sixty four b one of the commissioners own expert testers missed tested mr billow to finding that he had a kindergarten or less reading level the residual functional capacity is the most a person to do despite r illiterate she just chose to exclude it from the residual function of the past city even though the commissioner has said the r f c is the most a person can do the most mr blow to can do includes not being able to read and write in english the a l j just pretend that fact does not exist but that appears to be what she's done we are not asking the court direct the a l j to lanie evidence of mr blows illiteracy in the st instance the ale jay also failed to identify get an explanation from the book cation a witness and resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational witness's testimony and the dictionary of occupation titles according to the d o t the three jobs identified by the occasional witness and accepted by the ale j to deny mr b his claim those being cleaner cleaner to dining room attendant and counter supply worker all have t language level of one language a language level one requires the ability to just wondering in the light of his work history and in light of the links the visit the time that he and his father have been in there in the country  accent that's not the issue the issue was if you can read and write english when he came to the united states and i believe that i recall correctly was one hundred and seventy nine he was approximately one thousand nine hundred and twenty years old a tough time lot i don't understand here because if you're going to be a cleaner housekeeper or a d laundry laborer these were some other things that the vocational expert a done about it jobs are counter supply work or a dining room attendant i don't understand why that would require those jobs would necessarily require an ability to read and write english as much as they would require an ability to just speak the language where how does the dining room attendant for example mid to or a laundry labor necessarily need to read and write english as long as they can speak the language because i think that was what was on the mound of the vocational expert you're  which means that the algerian must recognize and resolve the ways in which the vocational witness's testimony seems to but not necessarily conflict with the expressive language of the d o t even if that conflict is not was in the discussion was judge wilkinson it asked a question about do these jobs you know do you have to be able to read and write to do than a vocational witness identified and that is i pointed out that gets to the crux of the  indicated that there are certain requirements of literacy that are associated with these jobs so why isn't that sort of conclusive unless you know the other side argues that those are maximum in the parliaments and perhaps  they're not required for each and every case and each and every job that you can see the point that it just works and pointed out that a vocational expert of the day in this case could conclude that a particular job might not necessarily need the kinds of writing and reading skills that the broader d o t classification seems to suggest no you and i don't can see that because we don't know the a l j is not a vocational  genie is directed by the commissioners rulings in by this court that there appears to be a conflict she is she was required to enquire from that vocational witness whether or not that two thousand five hundred dollars reading and writing ability is in fact necessary in those three jobs the vocational one is very well may have said no no revisions required at all we don't know that because she failed to this case because it involves the intersection of a number of different regulations rulings from the commissioner it ends up being seeming a little bit more complicated than it might be than it is  education level and renders it mean moved and the reason for that is under the commissioner's regulations regardless of mr blow his education level if he can perform the medium work at the america can i ask about that so mr p monday points out that with respect to this issue that sort of a key paragraph relating to the to this medium we're capacity misstates the record evidences to the nature of the x rays and when they were taken that the casing the rely on to show that there was some degenerative changes in is in his knees and that happens more than once in this case so it's the troubles me that we're relying that th at least reasonably suggest that the ale j this counted the x ray and which i assume is a treatment record right and if he or she don't know this was a male or female male j discounted that record which seems to me to be pain this is not an indication that he is precluded from performing all work it's not an indication that he's perfectly good from performing the medium or that sound was was warranted was appropriate and again the other piece here is we've got opinion evidence from two state agency consultants who looked at the entire record as well and came to the same conclusion so he isn't out on his own on her own on this point ability to perform medium work again yale j s the typo in that paragraph that your honor refers to on page nineteen if it's regrettable but it doesn't change the  also just to follow up on the apologists for interrupting you but you know in isolation i suppose that might be a reasonable conclusion but there's also the history about this case this is the rd rail jay that has reviewed this record two prior  but she's now saying nevermind he can do medium work but she's relying on the face of the bit excluding a significant part of the treatment record that might suggest otherwise so that's my concern about this case is that it's got a long and tortured history with other decision makers suggesting findings in favor of the claimant and now we've got this finding in the record at the st of the claimant which is littered with mistakes your in your medical record that's available with respect to both his physical condition and his ability to read and write english so that's that's my concern and we certainly understand your hon i'm just not sure that it's it adds up i think between the obesity and the arthritis and the limitations on kneeling and his very limited education this he had the burden of proving disability during this ten month period and this note that we're talking about it at five hundred and forty three dollars and it's the only record in the administrative record from this period of time so it indicates that he's got looks as if the vocational expert testified that he could do medium jobs and listed a few and could do some like jobs and listed a few and the these findings are consistent with the dictionary of occupational titles but the petition here points out that the occupational titles requires a level of education reading up what is it two hundred and fifty words and that type of thing that have not been demonstrated here what's your response to that yeah yeah responded the ale jay said the vocational experts testimony is consistent with the d o t but yet the vocational expert assumes that he couldn't read and write english and pointed out these jobs yet the dictionary provides that yes to have this level of speaking in order to do these jobs i mean reading level of reading through two things on that your honor the st is that the finding and that's just the page before that on  page twenty is that an individual with a marginal education that was able to communicate in english and there's no dispute about his ability to speak and communicate so an individual with a marginal education is able to perform this w and that was my question that's my question the dictionary uses marginal education but then when you look to a marginal education it defines it above the level that's demonstrated for the petitioner he it defines a marginal education as someone who can read up to two hundred and fifty words can i mean ninety words per minute has a vocabulary of two and three syllable words a fairly  large number what two thousand five hundred words or whatever and that has not been demonstrated that that goes to the crux of my question if it is not been shown that he is marginally educated well i think your honor is asking if i understand your question your honor there's really two pieces here because the language development level in the dictionary is indeed what you what you cited the two thousand five hundred words and that's that's a language level that's not the marginal a simple unskilled type of jobs that's that's what the ale jay found so there's not a a finding as to the number of words the number of reading the number of words that an individual can read that's in the dictionary  regulatory definition and this is this is crucial here because the regulatory definition is controlling so what the a l j is is is is finding is that this individual is able to has the ability and reasoning arithmetic in language to perform unskilled work that's it that's above a literate to be sure but that's the finding and there's an absolutely no conflict between that finding and what the dictionary says about and the educational finding to be unsupported because if either one is is supported the ael jay's decision here well i guess what i should say is it doesn't make a difference if i don't want to support it in the other one a clear from this record that the vocational expert made that distinction or were they just assuming that because a o j had found that he had a marginal education that that was all that their wrote they were looking at in terms of the number of jobs available in the  with this level of education and those jobs are identified the st three jobs that the individual or that excuse me that the vocational expert can can perform and then the alj asks this additional question and this is on sixty two dollars of the record so  additional question about whether there's are these jobs can still be required to perform without a requirement to read or write in english and the vocational expert adjusts her testimony slightly swapped out one of the dogs for another so what we're left with is is this another set of three jobs clean or dining room attendant laundry labor and the vocational expert is specifically considering this question of of ability in  they certainly don't appear to me to do that your honor cleaner is not discussing this and i'm saying that in the dictionary well well the response i guess what i'm what i'm trying to do your honor and forgive me what i'm trying to do is is yes the is answer question this way the dictionary includes a link a language level of one for each of those jobs that isn't as good what i point out is that the dictionary i questioned further let me just take because the vocational expert assumed that the dictionary was being complied with and even testified it was consistent her findings were consistent with the dictionary but the dictionary says you need two thousand five hundred dollars words you need to be able to read it ninety words i understand that i want you to answer my specific question my specific question is she related to jobs defined in the dictionary which requires the person to have two thousand five hundred words a cabinet vocational expert testified that this men can do those jobs and she said her testimony was consistent with the dictionary she did here and i take your honour's point to the vocational experts position here is that these jobs can be performed without the requirement to read or write in english that's that's the testimony and so the question then is whether the l j had a reasonable basis to rely on that test whether there because jobs for both medium and light and she gives the actual dictionary number for each one of those now the dictionary number for each one of those requires a level one education and she says  she says that her conclusions are consistent with the dictionary but yet her conclusions assume he can't read and write where the dictionary says you have to read and write at a certain level then she goes on to say what the dictionary doesn't specify english language but that's what i'm assuming so so the vocational expert is is asked about english proficiency not not literacy per se not not ability to read ninety five words per minute and and so i don't think the vocational experts contradicting herself here i think the vocational expert is saying that the jobs  judge diaz pointed out it is riddled with errors and mistakes but i want to st address i'm going to give the st address the vocational testimony the issue is not on whether or not the vocational witness said something wrong the issue is that the l j failed her direct duty as directed under social security r n the th circuit precedent in pearson to identify and obtain an explanation for an apparent conflict and there is an apparent conflict as that if the this is a hypothetical but if the vocational expert said i understood what the dictionary said about two thousand five hundred words but i also know from my own experience these jobs do not require that kind of reading and writing ability and and so we send it back we say ok there's a discrepancy between what the dictionary says and what the a l j found give us an explanation would we be sending that back just for the just for the a l j to say yeah there is a discrepancy but these jobs do not require in fact reading and writing because the lowest level that the dictionary uses is a level one they don't have and literacy level and so j puts in two sentences and says ok we recognize you can't read and write but he can still do these jobs laundry helper and the counter making sandwiches and that type of thing is that possible no sir because the a l j is not qualified to make that thing around whether or not he could read but there was no direct inquiry by the ala ga to the bookcase in the witness is he capable to do capable of doing these three jobs that you have identified because he is illiterate she never made that inquiry which is what she's required to do because there is a there is a conflict between what the n t says is required and what his his actual ability is and we can't make an assumption on evidence or speculate on  not in the record there is no evidence in the record of what amount of reading and writing these jobs actually require a few me you know i hope i fully  responded to your question as to the r f c the a l j incorrectly this is that record page nineteen incorrectly said mr billow to head a normal range of security ruling eight thousand three hundred and ten when discussing medium level work it specifically the commissioner specifically said flexibility of the needs as well as the torso is important for this activity so not examining state agency opinion no she didn't we don't know because she didn't say the a l j never explains how she concluded that mr billow to is capable of  said the a l j must form a clear and logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusions and then this court in thomas citing its decision and woods said a proper r c analysis h components once evidence to logical explanation and three conclusion the nd component the ale jase logical explanation is just as important as the other two indeed our president makes clear that the meaningful review is frustrated when the algae go straight from listing evidence to stating a conclusion and that's exactly what the a l j here did here and she didn't even state the evidence correctly  the commissioner has admitted and then just very quickly lastly the l j never even acknowledged mr billow does obesity the judge will consider was was talking about let alone duty individualized assessment of this honorable court stands adjourned until tomorrow morning god save the united states in this honorable court