the that i did not take any testimony from a vocational expert and then he ruled that the claimant could go back to his previous employment as a truck driver as an over the road truck claimant has the maximum residual functional capacity to perform work at all exertion levels he can no more than the car usually interact with the public coworkers in supervisors then he went on to say that i find that the claim it came perform his past relevant work is an over the road truck driver with the residual functional capacity described above first as judge no see it in the eastern district tale found that this was a legal way or the security administration drives away you know he really didn't have to do it he said no he said i told him if you will do it and he didn't do it so that was a legal a or however judge know she said that  the decision was still supported by competent and substantial evidence because if you look at exhibit eat they the one of the forms at the claimant feels out when they fall for up for social security disability is i'm sure the courts where there are many forms of are filled out and they asked him what jobs did he do and he listed them some of them were truck driving some of them weren't asked what do you do at the jobs and he or what did you do all day and he listed what he did all day no where did it say do you know or act with the public more than occasionally or what your interaction with the public you know is just a general question what do you do all i say well i would drive a truck public i think that's that's illogical i don't believe that's substantial evidence i also believe that and i made this argument and it again i researched it extensively only found one district court case that touched on it i believe that it was the rule of the case the appeals counsel said that that he could not go back to work as as a truck driver and then that became the rule of the case a judge and had to look well was there any other things that he could go back to you know it might be that in administrative decisions that you don't follow the rule of the case law i think that you i think that you do but i think common sense tells us that a truck driver have to interact with the public more than an occasional basis now posing counsel has said well you know you sit in the truck all day and you don't talk to anybody was probably right that's because you're here you're watching to make sure somebody doesn't pull out in front of you or you don't pull out in front somebody else or or you don't have a collision or they cheat when you stop at the white stations and you know you can ride with those types of people in  i think that that the court can simply take judicial notice that over the road truck driver interaction more than occasionally with the general public other than as a really have nothing else to say if you don't let  some push and force the what relieves specifically do you ask from us what should we do well i think that you have to remain the case for a new hearing in which case that the climate is going to have an avenue here i don't think there was substantial evidence to support the decision i mean it's a decision came the judge ruled that i find he can do his past work as a truck driver and i don't believe that support you know i guess you know he didn't go any further than that you have to send it back to whether or not it step five there's work that he can do that exactly why judge you know said it was not reversible error for the just for the administration law judge not to call the v i mean why call  ve if there's no evidence to support the fact that this person might not be able to return to passport i mean what would be have testified to in this case well the ve could have one of each could have testified that limitations that the judge found he could perform the duties as a truck driver you see because of the would know more than would know more about that than the administrative law judge that will be that would be yes i think so  i think you really got to the core issue in this case the there's nothing the court can really do in this case the decision before the court the final decision which is the only thing the court can review according to forty two u s c four  five g which is the authorizing statute for things to be here says the court can consider the final decision the commissioner the final decision of the commissioner in this case is the second date decision from october two thousand and ten as long as  additional evidence at the end and they all j read it and then the something we didn't talk about enough in our brief is that the plaintiff then filed a letter or i suppose a brief with the in ministration asking the court are asking if you'll come to reconsider because essentially his point back to the administrate of level was the second l j decision didn't follow your instructions because it didn't have any the testimony so in fact i think the i think brief from the plaintiff said that defied the l g division male judge decision had defied the appeals council's order of the appeals council and usually this is on pages one through five or so of the minister transcript simply denied any further review it indicated that had reviewed the additional evidence that the plaintiff had provided which had included the brief where they had accused the ale jay of defying the appeals council's original order and appeals council simply denied review so the final decision and this is the decision that's approved by the appeals council as well as the second decision they l j from october two thousand and ten so are you also making the point that if the if the appeals counsel felt that its previous remand had not been followed it could have seized on that it at the second request read it right because we weren't done yet at that your brief you say that he's not challenging the substantive findings of that was playing a game here is his the appellant challenging the finding that mr hill has only occasional contact her supervisors and the like i didn't interpret him as having challenges but i do think that the l j is that r f c is supported by substantial evidence they l j explained in his decision don't these truck drivers have to talk to deal with say wait supervisors and highway patrolmen and safety inspectors are stopped if they pull over for their road jackie who super the highway people come and check the brakes the lights the hoses the whole thing sure and you can t this man has trouble with all due respect to him he can't even get along with his own mother and i'm not belittling him but the rest of money is a right thing right with a little separate check because you can't be around as much yes well they'll take found that he can tolerate up to occasional contact with people and i don't think occasional that's the defined term to this agency i means up to a third of the way there much evidence as to how much contact and over the road truck driver has with the with highway patrolmen weight supervisors department of transportation safety inspectors dale j is entitled to make reasonable inferences from the record and keep in mind it's his burden it's plain its burden to show that he can't perform his pastoral work and what was the testimony on that on dealing with highly supervisors and the like well there isn't any evidence i see that you had was dismissed or worrying about something that there's nothing in the record just to point out where you that's right and it was better to prove those things right he talked about being in the truck for his first hearing you talk about being in the truck most of the day after thirteen or fourteen hours of the day doing long hauls there's no indication that he was dealing with a lot of people during that time certainly played it talks about there being hundreds of interactions during the day there's certainly no evidence of that in the record i would like to address his comments about law case as well while the case doesn't apply here at all for the same reasons that we are focusing on the second algy's decision first of all the appeals councils remember did say that the ale j will have the testimony but it did not instruct the algae in any particular findings any particular findings regarding to five steps to quench evaluation process and in fact if you look at the record i mean i'm sorry if you look at the fields council's instructions as a whole it basically goes through it it gives four instructions it's on page eighty nine it tells the l j to consider class r f c again to do a mental evaluation using a special technique which they all jay did in this case and the second decision he had in the first third it told the l j and this is sort of key give further consideration to whether plaintiff has any pastoral the work to which he could return in other words i think the appeals council's order open the door to a step or finding after remained and then the for the structure in which is the one plaintiff relies on obtain evidence from a b those are all procedural matters and in fact the fourth instruction is contemplating more step five but as the appeals council had already stated and as our rules say you can decide a case of step four you don't need to go on a step five and you don't need bookish an expert to decide cases step four as i said  the appeals council again reviewed this whole decision the whole administrative process including their own order and they all j's reaction to it and didn't see any reason to do any further proceedings here the  just a little but it's relatively common for l g s to find a person not disabled based on his description of his pastoral the work even though most cases the basically plaintiff has to be found not credible in order for us to find them not the sable essentially because if they were credible then we find everyone disabled so that's the ziegler case essentially which is in my brief and they all jane that case relied on the person's description of his pastoral work or it might have been a woman but just relied on their description for their consideration should be given to whether it private has any past relevant so they've ruled out the truck driver based on the r s c from the previous sale js decision they have ruled out the truck driver the r f c was different in the second to so many chances th good administration guy i don't think there's a limit on how many chances they get we'd like to get it right so before it comes before the court and i think this case was right it's supported by substantial evidence they are c in the second case was different the court's question is whether that aristide for example was it whether it was foreclosed by the appeal judges feel coun different than a three man hearing what further evidence was put in on this man's ability to be an over the road truck driver i don't recall any further discussion of his over of the road from driving it's an interesting point i don't think i've ever seen one quite like all go on with your argument i'm sorry addition of interrupt short i would like to talk about the point i think it's important because it's something that i noticed that ail j's residual function capacity in the second decision is different from the one in the first decision and that's really key to play it doesn't really raise in his brief so i hadn't discussed it at length in my brief but as long as substantial evidence supports that final decision the decision the r f c in the second decision the court has to a irm and i think there clearly is evidence supporting the different r f c in the second case failed to actually specifically discussed his ability to concentrate and found that he didn't really have any limitations in concentrating unlike the previous decision and there is evidence to support that for example plaintiff was seeking treatment in early two thousand and seven on page two ninety six of the records said that he had the ability to concentrate but his ability concert was fai e he started medications and on three o two a little bit later some medications were helping on three ten had said his ability to concentrate was good then the medical records the best ones we have a really from his treating  i think is how you pronounce his name the plaintiff didn't start to see until about june and july two thousand and eight and those are notable because again plaintiff is complaining about difficulty with his family and social difficulty when he takes his medication medications are helping he says but there isn't any indication dr murray has records that he noticed that he had any difficulty concentrating again it's plaintiff's burden to show that he has a certain r f c and there is no evidence he hasn't shown that he has already for anything other than an inability to handle more than occasional contact with supervisors coworkers of the general public and read so many of these over the years it's sometimes frightening because there you think all of us me some of us may suffer from the same things rumination what's that day do you really daydream and i guess i should but it is so interesting to read these i'm sorry for i don't think i have anything further if the court doesn't have any further questions moroney thank you ron there's like you know the judge held the hearing and he came up with the residual functional capacity there's evidence to support it but what the residual functional capacity what i'm not disputing that what i'm disputing is whether or not truck driving fits within there's evidence that truck driving itself is it's within that residual functional capacity and the judge referred to exhibit both the judge that the magistrate judge now see in that administrative law judge molding and said because the claimant we ask claimant what he did all that and he didn't say that i don't interact tried to do it in my brief and i read my brief over an author i botched that but basically they asked him a general question what do you do all die and he said what he did all die and and he never mentioned whether or not he had any contact with the public and because he never mentioned that they the judge uses that answer to infer that he did not that he was not required to interact with the public but was there was there a hearing or there was a hearing and there was hearing the judge i don't think ever worker's compensation jack from state in missouri if you know if the labor commission told me i had to do something or the court of appeals told me i had to do something then i had to do it you can't you know hear of the judge simply didn't do it and that's why  point three point two of the brief and that was jordan boasters austro from the eastern district of oklahoma of march thirty first of two thousand well that being the case with the on this point why shouldn't the fact that the the appeals council didn't council should work out between them between themselves because if it wasn't important enough for the appeals counsel to note it or to correct it to send it back it point out no you didn't mr a l j you didn't follow or instructions said that hasn't happened why should that be a matter for the wealth of the court you know oftentimes you know the appeals council he gets all of these cases you know thrust at him some they decide to review some i don't some i just say well we're not going to review the case we're not going to make a determination whether it's right along we're simply not going to review it that's what they did here furthermore the court oftentimes but again even even that that the issue is whether or not act given the procedural pastor of this case whether or not there's evidence to support that the the the judge's determination that he can go back to work as a truck driver and again the only evidence that supports a that is the nominee answer to that general question i don't believe that that evidence supports it i simply don't believe it's supported by co insubstantial evidence which case you're going to have to send it back for another here there's no other questions i'll have anything else