i can't even say it he's gotten to my limited brain stem basically from two thousand and one he had it unexplained brain swelling in two thousand and six he has a concussion after a car accident causing post concussion syndrome in two thousand and eleven and it was the last of question that includes all of the claimants functional limitations both physical and mental in this case he'll be asked for questions and the first two questions she couldn't most of the limitations when she asked a third question and that third question included one limitation that third question was i'm going to ask in your opinion what the tolerances are for an individual being off task throughout the workday outside of normal brakes so an individual with no further limitations and the vocational limitations may interact with one another it makes a difference say if you can do the job of a lawyer and the artist ten percent of the day as opposed to say fast food worker or a parking lot attendant or even a security know is that someone was no additional limitations could be our task ten percent of the day that's part of it the other part of it is the l j adopted and her decision that it was ten percent of the day that william v our task however she when she asked about jobs that william could perform she asked the question asked to less than ten percent of the day so i was actually counsel the administrative hearing as well it's in the record i have on page one fifteen in the record i started clarification and i said if he's asked has ten percent or more of the time we're done and we want to and that's where the hearing and well but since you brought that up then why didn't you ask the question that you think should have been asked on because my understanding was we were done but if you thought the question was improper at the j you had the opportunity to host the question in the way that you thought should have been answered by the vocational expert so why couldn't you do that because i actually thought that william was more limited so when i asked my hypothetical questions i asked more limiting questions i think can see that maybe he is not as limited as i thought during the hearing but it i wouldn't have combined those limitations because i would never let it be our task ten percent of the day i but my position as general of the hackler embry people and they tell us the location expert testimony can't be substantial evidence of of the limitations are not and one question well you know if you literally mean they have to be in one place in order for they say and if he had all those those limitations and also was off last ten percent of the time you can do that because that does become on one question in her question it was just an individual someone with no limitations just an individual how much could an individual be off task and that's a different thing but the l j of the step five also has the burden of showing jobs exist and significant numbers so wasn't my burden to prove that it was actually rumor and i'm saying that she didn't j has to ensure that there is a reasonable basis for her to rely on the v's testimony in this case we can't know if there was a reasonable basis for vocational experts testimony fail to give clear and convincing reasons for rejecting dr donovan's medical opinions so these medical opinions are in page four twenty in the record i realize there's four opinions i'm only talking about two three four because the first one is actually not disabling and i know i discussed that my the problem here there's multiple problems here first the l g a has to provide clear and convincing reasons for i'm contradiction opinions are specific and legitimate reasons why they are in this case dr donovan did extensive objective that she gave reasons for rejecting these opinions so every tells us the able j is required to give sufficiently specific reasons for rejecting the opinions she has to provide reasons as to why the a own interpretation of the objective findings is correct and the doctors are incorrect and in this case you missed the word objective findings so one of the things with the second and third opinion and the fourth is the  only psychological examination as such yes it is hackler toughs about is it says that is unacceptable to rely on and not examining physicians opinion where they l j submitter own opinion with that they found that unacceptable to the my apologies so her reasons include that we have never walked off the job as doctors out of it opined that he would do when he was working now when the definition of disability for social security is you're cannot or that he can cannot handle the pace of work because he walks away from his work when things are bad and somebody said he said he can't handle the pace of work and i think he would walk away from his work when things are bad because of that so that's can find a job in the national economy not just any person so the way you just stated that was the way to v h s to time the test of time chilling but is that the right question i believe it is your honor because the the visa testimony was guess the hall is in paris does it so as counsel mention delivering the previous questions and then applying that you know what work is out there and so that those are sort of more specific questions as to his limitations and we have a general question that sort of encompasses all of those office for up to you know the very limit of ten percent so the question is whether we needed that extra sort of clarification but we said that that was necessary because we already have that blanket statement that ten percent was a national level far as anybody can be our task and still be making it up you could be doing any number of things you know