required to consider like evidence the government states as much in its brief that page fifteen and the commissioner's own regulations lists the kinds of evidence of that will be considered among those kinds of  evidence are public and private social and welfare agencies and the government does not contest our assertion that the oregon vocational rehabilitation division is just such an agency and so i think we got at least as far as to say that the vocational rehabilitation division evidence must have been considered by the l j it needed to be checkbox document no question about it we don't we cannot say those things those might all be reasons the l j could have given or saying well i'm going to give this document more or less weight i'm thank you but you did not do what the evaluation at the end of it i'm sorry i can't give you the page but at the end of miss davis part of this which is a series of check boxes it would be about page two twelve or thirteen as a place to say well she needs a specialized placement which may eliminate some jobs that require very job duties and multitasking on the other hand a lot of retail stores in portland and moderate amount of stores use price thanks bill which of course related to some of her prior prior employment stuff and even within the documents from ends up being true or not we don't know because the program was not followed out but we do not dispute that one can find evidence in the record whether in the vocational rehabilitation document or in medical documents that might check that might weigh against the documents on which we were lucky that it's true but as a matter of administrative review the l j is required to say what his reasons are to give us the reasoning that says i'm discounting this document and here's why ambiguity in the record what is it you would like us to do we think you should send it back for payment of benefits the reason being this is not something that's hiding in the record counsel at the hearing asked the very specific questions to the vocational i'm under varney and for a for medical evidence and under small one and go drill for other evidence for lay evidence as long as there is no other no other evidence that needs to be brought into the record the record is complete  if we take this thing as true and we have a result then we remand for that result to be to be implemented in this case payment of benefits this isn't a question of more evidence being needed these are passed these are possibilities that's a statement about think the overall report may be ambiguous that's true but the opinion of sheila davis fool is a person qualified i think we have to say he's qualified to make these decisions and to make rest for a little in this case to go back to step five there is no medical evidence there's no medical evidence that on the file the supports any kind of functional limitations that come even close to what this vocational counselor came up with so there's a question in the national economy that the plaintiff could do finally i don't want to leave the impression that there is no evidence in the record that the claim that it's disabled and i am looking for it i'm afraid i can't find it someplace in the government's brief they refer that is going to be fifty nine years old in september she's five foot five three hundred twenty six pounds with a lower borderline mentally retarded intellect there is nothing else to do but send this case back for payment