conflicts and that there was a problem as far as the credibility and the pain assessment that's required under the regulations at the start i point out to the fore part of the function by function analysis method the first to do use that's called a sequential process which i'm sure the court's aware of at step three are supposed to take mental impairments in this case her back problems and her mental impairments and evaluate whether she translated into a hypothetical question and that hypothetical question under s s r ninety six dash an i p is supposed to be done in a step by step approach so that you can see exactly the thought process that the l j employed going to the condition to what in the hypothetical question in order to do that function by function my argument is that has to first explain how we determine the impairment existed second holly and permanent address the claimant's condition and what evidence supported the first two find have mental limitations of simple routine repetitive production are no demanding demanding pays attention and concentration for to our segments there's nothing in the decision that indicates how exactly mental impairment result in those limitations the judge's decision goes at great lengths to say what security is supposed to be given deference and to circumstances one is does the judge actually explain his positions and is the conclusion he reached logical that's why the thing is  look at the evidence and what a reasonable mind concur with us that the result concur that point to point b is a logical connection in this particular case there is no such logical connection because we have no idea you cannot pick up the decision read it and come to any clearer conclusion as to how the judge arrived at those limitations for mental errands substantial i'm doing the second argument first it's the function by function assessment substantial evidence requires the grounds on which the administrative agency act to be clearly disclosed and the courts cannot exercise their duty saying to themselves in once you have something that shows what the condition is or how it arrives it's meaningless and you can go through and i did this in a presentation two weeks ago you ask a hypothetical question to almost rodeos hypothetical question it's so automatic reversal yes because the to judge the point is that algis are directed when they're evaluating credibility in the commission or issues these rulings that instruct the l g is and how to interpret their own regulations in there says the a l j shall make talking about pain let me just ask for this particular point which was going to be part of my further valuation here the difference is the claimant at the time that she was ultimately had her hearing was close to fifty and either way if she is the judge found her sedentary which is the easiest form of exertional impairment she said she could not work full time she couldn't work full time she would be disabled under law so the question there is if we're talking pain where in here does it say the judge found that she needed a walker and i mean that's a pretty that shows a pretty severe level of pain she can't walk without and without a walker the any makes no reference to say anything indicating why it's about i  losing sight all right and let me put it very stinky like the substantial evidence test is not an issue of volume putting enough findings into the decision is not the same as providing we have a situation where he never explained how he considered her pain in assessing her overall area of exertional limitations we have a problem with the fact that he never explained how he arrived mental conditions and that those limitations applied to her mental mental condition if someone were to pick up a decision and have to question why or how they hail jake team up with a particular finding then that is not substantial evidence and there are gaps in this decision of significance without providing a proper explanation and that's the point on all i did want to point out and i'm eating into my time but i did also want to point out the problems outlined in with regard to the conflict in the testimony of the vocational state distinction between simple routine and repetitive and the definition of reasoning under reasoning level three in the dictionary of occupation but i'll reserve the of these talks about she can fall short and simple instructions she can see she can sustain attention and concentration for up to two hours at a time and so are and so is it exactly the function by function r c that it's done as required by the ruling in fact compared to this court's decision in moscow where and that in that case the r c limitation was simply on skilled work and that is not what we have in this case now to go more directly to th on page in the decision on page fifty five in the transcript dale j actually talks about the evidence that she relied on in finding most of this our city this claimant did not have extensive medical mental health treatment she was prescribed she took antidepressants for a short time following the death in the family and the primary evidence in this case related to mental functioning as a consultant or exam with a doctor meant for and dr medford opined that miss keller could understand retain and follow struct the finding that she can follow short simple instructions perform routine tasks it fully explains the finding that she could sustain attention and concentration for up to two hours at a time the other thing to look at is when the why did the algae find moderate difficulties in concentration  was maybe going beyond was what is directly in the record was giving the claimant some some benefit of the doubt and these limitations in production right demanding pace ability to sustain attention and concentration restricting her from crisis situations complex decision making these are the exactly the kind of limitations that would coincide with her anxiety was and with her own testimony that she gets frustrated because she can't do as she used to do that she sometimes have panic attacks and again even even looking in the in the physical r c there's an explanation for where that came from on page fifty four of the transcript specifically cites a state agency opinion finding light in july two thousand and eight and again it's a time or two thousand and nine and that corrected the issues by her own reports then she had and there is a large gap in treatment and then she had issues a different issue not necessarily with her lower lower back but with her  one example can come up with one example of one treatment visit after twenty twentieth's after twenty it's all related to back again and that's an emergency room visit where she reported intermittent back and was given some and inflammatory medication but that hardly suggests a course of treatment a long time course of treatment that would support her allegations of disabling him acting like pain finally finally they all j did not did consider her reports of why she wasn't pursuing treatment before making inferences related to her credibility because of their noncompliance with treatment the final point i wanted to address is this issue of whether there was a a conflict between the vocational expert testimony in the dictionary occupational title and this this court and pearson expressively ejected a contention that an ala j must resolve all possible conflicts and and signal that stated that the court was drawing a line there three there is nothing in the expressive language that conflicts with this r c reasoning level three requires the individual to apply common sense understanding to carry out instructions furnished in written oral or  form and there's nothing in there that says that these instructions are inherently long or inherently complex and in fact all those reasoning levels are one our two are three talk about applying common sense understanding to carry out instructions and there are some specifically wants to step instructions and that that is in the express language of reasoning level one and the court could reasonably see a conflict of conflict there based on the expressed language so to the extent a line should be drawn it as work which needs little or no judgment to do simple duties that can be learned in the job in a short period of time and all of these jobs at the vocational expert cited that the elegy relied on whatever the reason level are one through our three fit within that definition even if there were an error somewhere in the r c if you look at substantial evidence review and all the evidence that the elegy considered where is the evidence that she cannot perform the work and the same goes with with with with the argument about whether there is an apparent conflicts between with with the r c and the job cited by the ve there is no argument that that this particular claimant can't do those jobs in fact she has a history of semi skilled work which is as a home health aid like a like a fast food window where you take orders food and beverage orders and you take money from the from the customer and so there is some you know your you need to follow instruction these instructions might be in a diagram how to use the soda machine there is some there are some variation you have to distinguish diet coke from coke things like that but but that is not anything that goes beyond the r c and in fact arguments based on legal errors and legal rules but that also has to be combined with the what the evidence in this record this particular claim that what the able jay was looking at and and some allegation that the claimant was prejudiced and so there may there may be a case where an elegy maybe should give a better explanation of why there's a production rate limitation what exactly this means but that's not this case because that is not really at issue as the court said in moscow and talking about function by function they weren't going to there's no p on a semiannual basis called the vocational handbook that's given to all vocational experts in that book so they just google it specifically and to kids be prepared to answer if there is a conflict if i ask if you list a job that is the reasoning level of three so the commissioner on publication has conceded that there's a potential conflict between jobs that are reasoning level three and jobs or reason one and two that the judge should probably be inquiring about as far as the rest the question makes a big exactly right as an example i can point out that if they ask a vocational expert if a person is off work three days a month they're going to tell you every time that there are no jobs if a person is off today is a month you might get them to say there are one job there's going to be that that's acceptable in employment so the minor little discrepancy in a hypothetical question can make or break a case and so that's the point i'm making is clearly indicated that the judges are supposed to explain how they arrived at their conclusions and limitation what i'm trying to understand is what is deficient it's the fact is that it's limiting it to production rate production rate is vocational implie assembly line where somebody else controls the problem is is there's nothing that says that that's the only limitation for example as far as pace that's the only it doesn't describe how  moving very fast consistent basis i know that it may seem at times that i'm trying to but if ultimately the question is that we have to try to search around to come up with the conclusions figure out how the judge arrived at this conclusion that should not be substantial evidence or simply as claimants representatives simply asking the judges explain