the honor of all the judges of the united states court of appeals for the four stark it boyo away all persons having any manner or form of business before the honorable united states court of appeals for the th struck it are modest to give their attention for the court is now sit was not able to work because of that she had to work the booth wonderful seven in order to deal with the pain and that affect her ability to u a problem with what it called d m s five and and like i said the post made a stress disorder diagnosed in two thousand and six thing and dead who examiner did mention pain and it contributed to the kid is ten bone spurs and things like that and she even had surgery i think was two thousand and fourteen on her foot result a problem but be very hill is not a high burden is not a high standard it is ultimately the plaintiff's burden of proving that she is disabled and as long as there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable mind might accept is adequate to support a conclusion then it should be upheld here if there is substantial evidence met that bar is met exceedingly this is a thirty nine year old woman at the time of her application at the time that she reportedly became disabled and she was forty two years old at the time of the decision she purported that she was disabled because of but impairments including plantar fasciitis and bone spurs as well as irritable bowel syndrome th cause constipation those were her main complaints but with respect to her foot she testified that she wore her shoes tight to relieve to put pressure on her feet that's on pages eighty nine to ninety was adequate she admitted at the hearing that she was able to stand for one hour and sit for she could sit for as little as thirty minutes and stand again despite her pain and that that would relieve her foot pain and that's on pages seventy six dollars as well as pages sixty five dollars to sixty six dollars the l j limited her two jobs that allowed her to sit or stand as she needed and that's in his decision on page pages forty six to forty seven the vocational expert testified that as long as she could remain in either position for at least thirty minutes she could do the jobs that the vocational expert identified and that's on pages to ninety six dollars further providing additional substantial evidence in support of gail j's decision is that the record shows that she did not need an assistant device to walk like she did not know a cane for example she had a normal gauge dog they were close for sure lou your honor the requirement under the regulations is that the jobs exist in a significant number in the that the expert said she could find a job yes the vocation the ayles they asked the vocational expert to specify jobs that would be available limited to light work that allows for a sit stand option and the vocational expert testified that these are jobs that are available in significant numbers in the national economy and that is that is all that the regulations require character it's like for example we don't consider your ability to get to work we don't you know if you have a limitation that you do not have a vehicle for example the commissioner does not consider that  to provide something further and you know we're i'm looking at is section four a for dot one thousand five hundred and sixty six we consider work that exists in the national economy when it exists in significant numbers either in the region where you live or in several other regions of the country it doesn't really do where he lives so there you go and then it does not matter whether one work exists in the immediate area in which you live if you applied so this is the standard for determining whether someone is disabled or not it is not an actual exercise in providing them a job for example or ensuring that they would get evil to get to the job it is only to determine are there some jobs that do exist in the national economy that a person with the claimants limitations could perform and in this case the plaintiff with a younger individual and younger individuals are  long and i ask a slightly different question just to make sure that i understand and i don't particularly sort of asking about the concentration persistence of the pace finding with a district court indicated there was a moll impairment and i'm i'm just trying to make sure so can you point me to anywhere where there's an explanation of what those whose five stages me sure share your honor ok yes the district court did discuss the mild limitation and concentration mild is actually defined in like the listing listing twelve zero f two and it says your functioning in this area is says mild limitation your functioning in this area independently appropriately affectively and on a sustained basis is slightly limited by contrast a moderate limitation means you're functioning in this area independently appropriately effectively and on a safe sustained basis is fair  if if a person has no limitation in the four broad functional areas or only mild that would actually demonstrate a non severe impairment a severe impairment requires at least one moderate here or she did have a moderate limitation in her social functioning but not in concentration persistence or pace which is what the district court found distinguished it from mass and her main problem is she did describe was dealing with other people  and that's on page sixty eight where she said that that was her main source of stress was other people and then limited her to only occasional interaction with others in your honour's she did not allege a mental impairment in her application she didn't require any mental health treatment for two years after her alleged onset date and the illogic recognized that she initiated treatment towards the end of the relevant period and appropriately  evaluated the records that showed prior to that time that she had appropriate mood in effect adequate judgment and insight and then at her initial examination before she was on medication in august two thousand and sixteen she had some difficulty spelling world backward and recalling some items after five minutes however treatment notes thereafter in october and november showed that she had logical thought processes and she had goal directed speech and that's on pages six hundred and eighty four thousand six all right thank you so much ok in the r f c it says sitting or standing as desired such as in benchmark occupations and that's on page forty six  didn't it stand as needed someplace ok and then i am not sure where the discrepancy is i am trying to quickly look right now answer i'm asking here ok here because of that ok i see on page ninety five it says the individual did would be able to perform the jobs either sitting or standing as desired such as in benchmark occupations  i believe that is he says as desired and then the r f c says also as desired such as in benchmark occupations so pages forty six and ninety five look identical and it is consistent with stand or sit for at least a half hour at a time and that seems different from saying sit or stand as needed because that would imply that you have you have a choice at every moment whether it's interesting your honor ok deal they did ask about sitting and standing as desired and then the vocational expert said as long and this is some pages ninety five and it continues on to ninety six it says i do find that these job someone does need to be able to maintain a position for approximately thirty minutes in order to stay productive on the job so then said i believe she testified she could stand for about an hour and then would have to sit for about a half an hour and then the vocational expert continued to describe the jobs so when it's so the l g is question was this was as needed and then the b clarified that she would need to sit for thirty or stick you know say one position for at least thirty minutes and the plaintiff testified that she could do that that she would be able to stand for an hour and sit for thirty minutes and then resume standing and that was on pages seventy six dollars and i believe is earlier in her testimony as well on pages sixty five to sixty six she testified that she actually had tried to do that in her prior occupation but it did but she said that it slowed her down too much however here the vocational expert identify jobs where she would be able to be productive there are different jobs ones that she would be able to be productive at as long as she could just stay and either position for at least thirty minutes honor she testified that that was how she needed to stand and said she testified that in her prior job that she did try to to do this exact kind of sitting and standing and that her employer did allow her to do it but in that type of job dollars but your honor bill j did account for her foot impairment although she was not able to get this surgery on that was recommended she was she was not taking regular pain she there was a time that she took some pain medication your honor and i'm not sure that was even during the relevant period but as of the time of the hearing in and other treatment notes from two thousand and sixteen she was not taking anything actually see specialized providers a variety of specialized providers this is not a person who is going to the e r frequently because of pain and she doesn't even have any restrictions given to her by any of her providers if she did testify she would be able to stand despite her her foot pain she could stand and then she would be able to sit to alleviate the pain and then sting and then she could stand again or not you can make a meaningful review of the decision and that is my i'm contending that a court cannot because this a fuss about function test was not used in this case now was the