appellant aloni in this case and the the primary issue in this case is that the ail j failed to even mention the outcome determinative testimony of his agency's own medical expert in implicitly concluding plaintiff's knee impairments were not medically equivalent to the listing of presumptive disability one hundred and eight dollars here did not even mention the possibility of medical equivalence let alone provide a more than perfunctory loney's combined impairments were or were not medically equivalent to listing a failure to even mention let alone resolve the contradictory testimony from his own agency's medical expert within his decision does  provide reviewing body the requisite logical and accurate bridge from the evidence of no medical equivalence to listing one o two a doctor tiller's testimony was plainly contradictory on the one hand  and on the other it's indicative of his simply missing the fact that appellant exhibited the final criteria he alternately testified to the l j that would he indicated would medically what would indicate medical equivalence that was flexion contracture or in other words extension equal to or more than fifteen degrees short of full extension of the knee this testimony was outcome determinative two appellants case in the l j simply brushed aside and ignored the fact appellant exhibited the very criteria his own agency's testifying expert opined was required to medically will the listing decision does not even mention this clinical evidence additionally doctors will or appear to testify previously that appellant's combined impairments were medically equivalent to the listing due to insufficient flexion or the ability to been the need now it's a little lowndes counsel didn't apparently make much of this testimony and apparently everybody who was in the video conference thought it was pretty clear what he was saying namely that she didn't meet  equal one point zero two hey what's the ail jay have to do more and if so why well the final criteria that dr was was to to equal the listing you would need to flex contracture that was equal to or more than fifteen degrees and he ultimately testified that no that wasn't in the record but unfortunately his testimony was an accurate he miss two instances where flexion contracture was limited at fifteen degrees when or gave that testimony plaintiff's counsel was not given the opportunity to cross examine him after at that point did the ass warrant he didn't your honor but the ale j moved the hearing along directly to the vocational expert and just just as a as from my experience you know doing these cases for an administrative law judge what generally happens is that the medical expert is excused from the from the  the call or the video once once the judge goes to is done with his testimony and moves on to the next to the next expert already abduction did you have the opportunity to would have had the opportunity to subsequently supplement the record he could have directed the attention to the to the evidence that's in the record there would have necessarily been a need to supplement it but again i mean jay is responsible for for considering the relevant evidence and the evidence that's most important he does have the burden of of constructing a logical and accurate bridge between the evidence and his conclusion upplying the evidence that demonstrated the very criteria that that doctor jewel are said was necessary to sue to equal the listing and then of course you also have the issue it so doctor jurors called to review the record in its entirety and give testimony and if the judge is wholly relying on doctor jill ors testimony that there's no medical equivalence even though there's evidence which contradicts that it would seem that that reliance on an uninformed testimony would fail to support with substantial evidence is conclusion with responsibility to give a more than perfunctory analysis of of his his conclusion with regard to the listing and that simply didn't happen here because yale j didn't even mention  your morning and made it please the court in my name is david marvis on behalf of the commissioner and my apologies for the technical difficulties at the outset there are two issues that have been briefed in this case but as we've been discussing as is is counsel been discussing the listing issue the medical equivalence issue i'll focus on that in my presentation although i'm certainly happy to answer questions about the the two thousand and seventeen letter opinion step of the evaluation where miss the loney bears the burden of proof and it's also important to know what why we're having this discussion about doctor jill are in the st place and i think the or the answer to that question is because the l j was was appropriately i think paying attention to this issue so in a pre hearing brief before the algis before the hearing the administrative hearing miss lonnie's prior counsel noted it's a screening device it's these are criteria that are listed in the commissioner's regulations they are so severe that they present all gainful activity so miss the loney for the burden of proving that she either because doctor g laura testified to it because mister lowney counsel had had indicated that that was relevant and and of course that it's implicated by the by the evidence here and then the l j makes specific findings and says that  this issue aside the alj a decision reflects his consideration of it and more to the point reflects how the a l j reached the conclusion and basing that on the t our testifies to is that there is a measurement of flexion contracture measurement that that he's looking for and he doesn't find that and what he says is that it's equal to a more than fifteen degree cou for is not present in the record there is not evidence of selection contracture this inability to straighten the leg with a measurement of more than fifteen degrees and that's what doctor or as has testified that he's looking for and again the l j s is quite insistent making sure that that is what in fact doctor jill was testifying to again this is a this is a technical issues is a complex issue so the l j quite reasonably ask the medical expert you know one certain terms what did you just say and then the a l j me doctor joe or confirms what he is telling the l j and then again at available to the a l j had the testimony been different or had the record and if what doctor jill was testified to and of course we are limited by what the a l j said is that that fifteen degree measurement isn't present now it's also the listings are stringent they are there for a reason and this medical expert testifies to a specific degree of limitation that he's looking for i'd note that the listings also require duration water testified to so so that's just another factor in the record on this record but the commissioner's position here as we set out in our brief is that doctor joe are reviewed the record saying that there isn't evidence of ineffective ambulation there isn't evidence of flexion contracture that is sufficiently severe to meet this screening mechanism this stringent requirements for to meet  no equivalence went to a one initially asked by the then plain appellants counsel asked about specific appointments where a doctor said she needed bilateral knee replacements what did you just say to where we get that's where we get to the flexion contracture part of it but part of doctor jill orse testimony when initially prompted by counsel was flexion so that's another aspect of this an inability to bin the need as opposed to just fully straighten it and i think there's just ambiguity here we we we don't know what exactly was intended by that that dale jr should have at least be required to confront that in order to for the court to find that he gave a more than perfunctory evaluation of medical equivalence to