rodeo the commissioners conceded that the hail j erred in relying on the identification of two occupations the pair mutual ticket checker and the telephone quotation clerk so that leaves us with one occupation and that occupation is the dowel inspector  the vocational expert testified in the algae found that the occupation represented about seventeen thousand jobs in the national economy less an approximate ten percent erosion but the never found that number to be significant only found the aggregate to be significant and the commission would like the court to substitute its own fact finding for that of the commissioner on the premise that other courts of the firm able j findings that a lesser number is significant in some occasions but that's not really the task the test is whether a reasonable a l j could find that this number of this eroded number is not significant i would submit to you that that this court shouldn't refrain from making a factual finding because the agency is the fact finder  i've seen them a lot maybe they're really decide and then just us i don't know that we have certainly seen him and here's one right our desk now but i've seen him i think memorandum dispositions that does happen quite frequently and we never know from a memorandum disposition exactly what all the facts takes notice in paragraph d two of county business patterns county business patterns just was list job numbers by industry that's all that lists the commission also takes notice of the occupation while the handbook  paragraph d five and paragraph the and the occupation album handbook marries occupations and job numbers and job descriptions and kind of operates as a bridge between the d o t and the county business pads which provides job numbers vocational experts don't just we would hope that vocation actress just don't make numbers up they have to get them from somewhere the commissioner said the  well when this court confronted the will take administrative notice of the d o t and carrie johnson and light in other cases that predate the social security ruling this court imposed upon the commissioner an obligation to adieus a persuasive basis for deviating from that source of administrative notice and the commissioner makes no difference she ation of different sources of administrative notice in her statement that she will and never know what you're asking about is it in that you have to you have to use the the occupation what handbook in the hyperlink to the employment projections to derive that it's fifty eight hundred jobs at most that are inspectors in the wood industry but that is the nature of administrative notice this court a long time ago in the immigration type takes that administrative notice as a method of of a stab fact without any evidence and so we look at the d o t to establish that there are certain requirements jobs education exertional not exertional impairments environmental concerns and we do that without the introduction of of any evidence and the occupational would have a isn't any different you want us to take your dishes if you're asking well i think i'm asking the court to treat the occupational like handbook and  a very restrictive residual functional capacity she's limited to sedentary work she's limited to simple repetitive tasks which we know wipes out a large swath of occupations and she has limited neck motion which is going to impact her ability to do production and other types of work their vocation expert can see that in this case there's a ten percent reduction in doing inspecting type work she didn't identify any other types of of occupations that would be appropriate for this case needs to go back for an additional hearing suffers from diabetes high blood pressure and pressur i'm sorry sitting in the region would be would the region would be the san diego imperial region or the southern california region the state of california it would be the region i'm not sure what the region would be in any in this particular case this court in in one case has suggested that the state of california can be a region except when they're at the extremes so i'm not really this case really isn't about the reason because  undefined in this case but it could be defined on remand that make a big difference the way it's defined and remain county wide metropolitan my my view would be that it's the typical by county metropolitan statistical areas that are described by a when b and the other agencies if they're always used that's how job numbers are reported in metropolitan statistical areas that's what how department of labor publishes job numbers to tell whether the region you believe i think the region for linda lamar because she lived in senate would be sa national number of jobs as a doll inspector could be considered not significant by a reasonable a l j because this court never reviews favorable decisions when the nail j says that this number is too low that not that case never comes before the court of appeals this court reviews only what we consider to be the wrongful denials of benefits not the commissioner doesn't bring wrongful grants of benefits to the court good morning your honor shay bond on behalf of the acting commissioner social security really the only issue before this court is whether the jobs within the occupation of the dow inspector which was fifteen hundred thirty within the local economy that was that was the that was the defined region with local economy at the hearing what you just say you saw some complaining about in the national well the national number was higher but for this court to find that a significant number exists it's either the national number or the local number so even if this court were to find that the national number was not significant as long as the local number is significant that's all that matters and so if you look at the menial case i mean it is true that when when he says these there are three jobs and implicitly adds up the numbers and says that's enough and then it turns out that two of them are wrong how do you know what you want to decide if they're  occupations identified it was a surveillance system monitor and i care about the other occupation as at this moment and so the challenge was that the the jobs identify was not a significant number and this court went on to say well the had never actually found that so in mino there were two occupations the ale day had found that there were between one thousand and fifteen hundred surveillances to monitor jobs in the local area this court said that given the case along the circuit barker at the time that alone showed that that number was significant and then the last sentence in the court's decision is thus we need not address minos arguments regarding the additional occupation of fundraiser so this court determined just by looking at the one occupation and jobs existing within that one occupation that was sufficient to establish the significant number of jobs in the local economy and again the testimony here shows that within the local opinion it's not in the old days opinion where do we find the definition of a local economy well i think you have to take in the context that you can have a local economy you can have a state economy and i think by saying local economy we're shrinking it or shrinking it down local regional economy it's meant to be flexible so dependent on the job or the occupation that employs i don't think so i guess i guess it could that if there was a there was a occupation that was more prevalent in a particular city economy well the l g specifically asked the ve to testify to the local economy as opposed to state economy so i think it's reasonable to assume that with the instruction of the local economy intended to be smaller than the state and i've seen that language used in many cases if it were if we were talking about the state wide economy i don't think so your honor because hundred no because the fifteen hundred if you and we started multiple cases in our brief both published unpublished i did twenty j letter with a recent decision by this court unpublished the evans case which said that six hundred jobs in the regional economy is sufficient so when you when you look at the combination of the of the cases in the circuit and the cases that this court has cited favorably from other circuits it's it's it's clear that in this case the fifteen hundred thirty jobs would be deemed sufficient absent the other two occupations being without it  nine this court said that all these issues need to be raised to the ail day at the hearing and specifically it was about the job numbers that exist within an occupation and that was not done here there was competent counsel at the hearing this  attorney he has twenty years experience in litigating in a working security hearings and he did not feel it necessary to question the vocational expert about the source of the job numbers it was it was conceded at that point the supreme court held i think and it's in this case about which says there just need to be exhaustion meaning to the commissioners that might mean no sims only addressed issues that are brought to the appeals council just right just to the appeals council as opposed to what has to be raised at all ever right it did not address at the l j hearing and in fact and i believe it's in a footnote in our brief we thought it also talked about the responsibility of but it was not addressing the issue about whether there's a waiver at the administrative level so menial still survives sems and i would point out here that this evidence was uncontested at the hearing the commissioner satisfied her burden of establishing the numbers of jobs available within his occupation through vocational expert testimony bayless says that the ves x expertise is the recognized basis for that testimony  to challenge at the hearing it's waived and in this case even the evidence produced afterwards does not sufficiently challenge the number of jobs good this court thought that the that the the local as the a l j the term the elder use was vague you could use i would say you could use the state but i don't think it would make any difference in the outcome of this case the fifteen hundred thirty jobs published an unpublished within the circuit establishes that even if you took the state of california as the region fifteen hundred thirty jobs would be sufficient and for all the reasons that we cited in our brief the cases that we cited are brief and the  probably true but the question isn't the population of the state it's whether there's a number of jobs within that state that's significant california has always been a very populous state availability of of the jobs so it's the fact that jobs exist so so it has nothing to do with any real world anything just some number out there well i mean it's real world in a sense that the vocational expert is looking through source materials to determine how many of these jobs new economy i mean i'm not i'm not the vocational expert and i know but on that theory you could be talking you know what difference does it make if it's a child the person can do or can't do on the you try to find something well rather the question of whether or not this person  actually should be paid money for not being able to work because they're not really not going to be able to work in the long run that's what you're trying to find now right and so the question is that when you take the claim the claim is residual functional capacity which is uncontested here that you can do a range o and then you add that to the vocational profile factors of age education part work experience including transfer ability of skills whether it with those combination of factors could the claimants still do work in the economy and here the vocational expert absolutely lots of manufacturers within the state of california so those jobs are available and that's the occupation that the classify classification that the location likes are picked and those are the jobs that this claimant can perform courts across the nation of always allowed the introduction of the d o t and and sources of administrative notice at the court level i don't think we should constrict that now so what do we do w the the lawyer tried to introduce a third party non governmental publication to as evidence of the number of jobs or not on that point but on the question i mean that it's just seemed to be structured very similarly to this case that is that there was a challenge to one of the jobs in the court went to the other job and said well that job is has enough jobs and i don't care about that the one that does it rather than doing what you're asking for which is i don't think that the a l j made a composite finding of significant numbers of jobs it was eighteen years ago and my memory is a little bit fuzzy and i know it's not in the decision whether the