so karen sutherland is a case where she meets the a listing for cognitive impairment twelve o five dollars and one dollar of the requirements she has an i q test of sixty nine dollars cognitive impairment basically the mean is one hundred and if you are one five deviations two standard deviations you're in the extreme and twelve o five adopts that but you have to meet a showing the commission gives a lean if you show this your whole life if you can show a finding of cognitive impairment below and i q scores are standardized so that means that they're supposed to be lifelong those added deficit's affect the way she functions and words that in the record that's in the record in i think her her  trying to to put this where that's in the record i think that there's no she was found to have a severe mental impairment it's whether she meets the listing or not and she has a she's been found to have severe during loss and severe garbled speech so her functioning that that you're asking about literally comes from the whether she had the residual capacity to work and the problem with that is that her record shows she had sheltered work where she worked with someone that that is in theory that's her medical treatment is so we have sorry to have to get that page number so i don't include it here her social worker general mental problems she has difficulty answering questions her registration of working she can't count she could can't spell backwards are back together documents and  showed that mrs sutherland's prior work was quote sheltered work and what would you do that s her her sheltered work was if you look in the record at page three hundred and thirteen she she has a friend who has been sort of working and helping her try to get jobs she says i've known karen sutherland since one thousand nine hundred and eight i helped to fill out i notice she can't read or write very well i know she has a speech problem and i help her on the job duty with the supervisor until she could understand what she could do i literally had to show kar what to do in jobs or to help her write a letter to apply she's helped levon jobs that's three hundred and thirteen she's held eleven jobs with thirteen employers she she had she gets in short it has to be significant gainful activity and there's only these two jobs and that those jobs were worked with miss mosquita so that is the point there are not very long jobs she's she does the best she can  no she does not have a ged and the ged problem was that she went to school in canada and that was the whole showing evidence that the for twenty two dollars she has no academic credits she in canada evidently in her town to not have a special that program and she took classes there's no vote there's no academic education in it there's a p e class a in a construction class she managed to get  house you have to have an academic math and english and some ability and she can't you know she is illiterate in the functional level so that's that was the well when you have work that you that you have to have someone beside you helping and that's what dr what her friend musky is stating then that's sheltered work because it's work that you can't do independently for instance she did get like a credential or she thought she got a credential to be a nurse's assistant and she learned to buy one on one showing what what she could do you know to but you couldn't keep the job but she did learn that and got a nursing certificate but the problem is on the job if there's any problem or change you can't you can't do it because you don't know your so that's why it's sheltered because she has to have someone beside her explaining things and she can't she also has a real problem because speech and she's a but she's got bilateral totally deaf in one ear and and partial hearing in the other so we have someone that is disabled who's functionally disabled by them dealt listenings because she meets twelve o five she has a showing before she's twenty two she's got an extra physical  ments with her hearing in her speech and she has the standard i q scores of sixty nine so that should meet but she is not a good near it are and at they said do you have a ged she said  yes no yes no and kind of just got lumped along but we gave evidence that she doesn't have a ged doesn't have any academic background so we had to put the evidence together what was an ideal circumstance it would be in the us and there would be psychological testing before twenty two dollars but there that's not require it please the court i'm jeff staples for the commissioner this is a case in which expert testimony from doctors psychiatrists and vocational consultants supported each of the ale j s findings that are at issue today on the point about listing twelve o five c nancy winfrey ph d was a medical expert that the algae called to testify about this complicated medical issue and dr winfrey said that there was nothing to suggest that sutherland satisfy the deficits in adaptive functioning that judge bear was asking about earlier and that give testimony respond to hypothetical and the l j said if you have an opinion which complex with information the d o t dictionary of occupational titles we'll let me know and the experts said the expert would let her know and then i'm not sure they did really sufficiently respond to the discrepancy between illiteracy and the requirement of at least their very modest amount of literacy for every job there's some testimony here where the the spoke to that but our case law in savile and math i think it's misaki and i'm not sure i'm pronouncing that correctly says that the l g is required to reconcile that inconsistency and i'm not so sure that they js actual findings here meet that standard us speak to certainly your honor the to give sutherland and her representative the benefit of the reasoning level which as your honor points out in the d o t it does require at least billeted to read and write these are actually not jobs that require those abilities  and the ve went into some detail about what it was in those jobs how a person who was illiterate could perform those jobs council that's what that's my that's i'm saying the ve did i get that i'm just trying to figure out  certainly your honor the l j pointed specifically to the vocational experts testimony so the l j pulled out that that point about illiteracy but this is an additional issue perhaps that requires some further resolution and so in order to address that this is it fifty dollars to fifty one dollars of the e r the l g a notes that the vocational expert testified that if such a person were illiterate she could nevertheless do those past jobs and the other jobs on which the algae relied at step five so by referencing that testimony which was pretty specific about how at fifty dollars to fifty one dollars of the e r it's thirty a fifty one of the r must have a there are two sets of numbers at the bottom right i think that's what's messing me up i believe the site is fifty to fifty one and then the the other the original numbering from our you know the s s a does thirty one to thirty two this happens often it's it's the last two pages of the old days decision if that helps that helps a lot i'll just go to that it's much easier ok it's the nd to last paragraph of now and there are two sets of numbers and you want me to look where please the top of fifty one or top of thirty two depending on which numbers you're using offer that specific testimony the o j satisfied that you know resolve that any discrepancy that there was so you think it's not necessary for her for a day to identify the d requirement no because to the extent well a few things to that point your honor st of all the ale g a there's nothing to suggest necessarily that that she was illiterate are a lot of that's different that's a different i'm just saying i'm not i don't think that it's necessarily the case that there was a conflict between her abilities and the d o t in the st instance to the extent that there was the g certainly resolved it by asking the vocational expert well what if this person were illiterate i'm not saying that she is but what if she were ok even if she were she could still do all of these jobs on which i have relied ok and just quickly  did not say well literacy is inconsistent with the d o t in this way but the did go on to describe specifically how these specific jobs could be performed by a person who was illiterate to the extent sutherland was illiterate i think you've answered my question thank you you're welcome your honor and let me just go on to say that there is plenty of evidence suggesting that sutherland could read and write at least very simple things her husband testify that she could read notes that he left her to remind her to do things and that she would leave notes for him for instance if she went out of the house you know as i mentioned there's a lot of evidence suggesting that she went to at least some high school or graduated from high school there's a lot of evidence suggesting that she got a ged so i don't think it's necessarily the case that she was a letter at but as we've been discussing even if she was the algae explained how a person i have that limitation could do all these jobs on the subject of the past relevant work the vocational expert also testified that she had these these past jobs that she had done for sutherland learn how to do the job until she could do it on her own and that's not as sheltered work environment that's just a work environment you your coworkers and your supervisor teach you how to do something and then you can do it and that's a job that's not a sheltered work environment a sheltered work environment is a very specific almost institutional kind of workplace and that's there's really no evidence to suggest that that's how she was performing these jobs so because we have medical expert testimony supporting the ail j s finding about twelve o five c because we have another medical expert supporting the l g s finding about the extent of sutherland's hearing loss and other neurological issues that was lynn john key and the and because we have a vocational expert supporting the l g s finding it step four and her alternative finding at step five substantial evidence supports all challenged aspects of the is a term in special education it doesn't mean you work in a workshop away from other people we now have full inclusion we see workers who are impaired who working in you know safe ways and places programs you do need to work a job independently it but any way out let's go to the ruling the ruling says that circumstances that indicate a strong possibility of sheltered is where the claimant is man mentally impaired and also  has a childhood disability or the employer or the other interested parties do more work then the client so we have someone who's been tested cognitively impaired there we have the ruling covering those jobs those jobs were very short and as far as the literacy we have to lean back up on the test scores and upon dr mclean the other one that we're talking about is report that when he test they gave the many mental exam and she can't read or you know like when they tell you to to read word say spell the word she can't do it and as far as the when there's a discrepancy between the vocational expert and the a l j i i read the supreme court basically as saying that they all chase in charge and they all she has to write in the decision so that we can understand why she could work these jobs when she can't read and write there's a complete discrepancy between the dictionary of occupation titles and the vocational experts jobs i'm  like because you can you know they do teach people that are not who can't read and write to symbols or or to i mean you could use words no no but i'm saying that a note you and i might be like a whole f page over or a sentence but we don't know what the notes no we don't but we know that the record says that the record said that they leave notes for each other that suggests to me that somebody is reading and somebody is now i'm not suggesting that they're writing well but when you say literate well ok so you know we don't know what the notes with but the if i just did want to answer this because he said that there's a g e do it yes so and if you look at the right think this will show it if you look at to ninety at the bottom a to ninety or to seventy one that's her transcript from this time period that she's supposed to have a ged there is no academic credit she's got consumer education construction physical education and she gets a pass and she gets a c plus in construction that is not a ged that does not show literacy so if we're to show literacy on the psychological test she should be able to spell word or she should be able to spell you know some of the minute you know that's implied in there and there's no ged you have to have you know english courses math courses or you have to pass a test but even if we were to throw this illiteracy to the side she can't can she has garbled speech and she can't he so we have a communication issue that's built into the ability to communicate and that's part of our problem here is that if you just functionally working a job you have to be able to take instructions from your employer so even if there was some a different person who could read and write but couldn't hear and couldn't communicate that would be that the discrepancy told me she's  no no she has a severe profound hearing loss bilateral hearing loss in one ear and you know partial the problem is she went to cosco and got her hearing tested and then the exam put the examiner said well it's this is odd but she does there's no there's no disagreement that she has a hearing loss to council to ninety clearly states that she hasn't graduated rest hasn't graduated and then it gives the reasons for not graduation so is there any is there something that conflicts with this notion of a metric matter no she didn't know the right what evidence is there that she does have a ged there is none but but counsel did your client