this case primarily involves step five which is when the analysis of disability enters the phase where the determination as to whether or not there can be other jobs and what are the numbers of those national jobs this area of wall in some states and some sense over the last year mostly they were looking at issues that related to arriving at numbers from surveys and extrapolating from from a survey here and the other important thing about  case is that it cited this court case and chavez versus very pale and the importance of the chavez case is that it was the culmination of this court so the point of all of that is here we are again with a step five analysis by a vocational expert that is deficient  the vocational expert tried to explain his methodology they can you can read that it takes about a page in the record it talks about how it looks at standard occupational codes which are the broad category of jobs from the labor statistics and then how he goes through a process of waiting and then arriving at his numbers although i never get specific enough to tell us the most important piece of information and that is what is the weighting factor and so just like the laura case in the browning case in the chavez case the evidence to support the national numbers is not sufficient it does not rise to the level of substantial evidence or reliability and therefore the commissioner has failed in his burden at step five at a minimum this case be more specific about the job through that not only more specific they need they need to come up with a rational methodology so that the national numbers are more than a have a connection to reality because if you don't have a connection to reality with reality reality when you're determining to handle numbers the sectional numbers are  reality is what is a reliable number you can get to that point if you do scientific polling and go up the vocational expert a sizeable part of them  can take a broad category and make some tweaks with the broad category and find out something about the smaller category that's what th look i believe i don't know this for sure anymore your honor but about ten years ago we did do a lot of looking at local numbers and that was my right yes i think it might might have been by regulation i don't know i think that personally i think the local numbers are important but social security changed the gears and we don't look at the local numbers anymore we just look at national numbers but either way with local numbers you'd still have to have a way of determining what is a real number versus what is a gut feeling number and and that's kind of whatever  reliability that's the point the reliability is not there i could tell it we could say oh well there's eight hundred thousand stars out there so there must be ten thousand but you know there there's probably trillions of scars but who knows but the point is that you can't least my argument is you can't make the leap to judge right well what's the legal standard that i mean we're not we're not in seven o two territory here  was baked very carefully about fifteen years ago it ever until recently that's right but once we started to really look at how the pilot was baked it became clear that this top down because of in this circuit because of the case law we have the most proficiency social security attorneys are objecting every single time and they've told us for years and years they were going to fix this and get us some reliable numbers attached to dish and of occupational title to categories and we're still not there either are there any regulations that govern the process by which these objections have to be raised or is this just happening on the fly during the hearing well there's a case i can recall that said we had two objectives kind it's not  objection is kind of silly because it's all it's just an objection that the methods are not reliable but right but there's just no regulations that govern the procedure for objecting to  qualifications or method this is a method objection yeah it's just sensual essentially what they attorney saying is that they methodology appeals unreliable numbers but that doesn't have to be lodged ahead of time way because it and i don't have to bother judges at the end of hearings with all the speeches i have to write but it would also put everyone on notice that they're going to be put to the to the burden here nationwide and gets into acquiescence they ignore they essentially ignore it the best guidance that we have received in in a long time came from the b stick case which is the supreme court case  and yet the supreme court case only talks about the bottom up methods because that was what was at issue and and i don't have much more on the case law is what it is we have to and we but this court has recognized in the chavez case and the supreme court recognized includes tack that in this arena estimates are necessary what matters is whether the testimony is reliable and here the vocational expert explained why his numbers were reliable he stated that they were based on its expertise in job markets and how these jobs are performed and vocational experts you explain the methodology in a couple of clear sentences your honor the vocational expert testified that he used the s p o categories and waited for a private job number estimates in the smaller  and and in discussing their vocational experts expertise i think what's important is that he was doing the day to day actual work of placing people and so he had an idea in the actual industry at that time how those jobs were performed and how right that this is not a challenge to his qualifications or his experience this is a challenge to the method that's used and frankly not just in this case but in every case so this is this is a broad spectrum challenge to the methodology that locational experts are using in all of these cases  what the vocational expert castle which was right thank you didn't really explain there's just a couple of sentences it says where he says you know i make this copy to mathematical computation from the d o t divided by the o process involves well your honor i think the reason why i keep going back to the experts here is because they have that expertise to do without waiting but they should then have the expertise to explain we don't have that further here but we also don't have further questioning from the council regarding how that waiting occurred and we do as is your honor pointed out we also have the discussion of counsel's objection and they always recognition that justice there is a significant number or even if it's not one hundred and forty thousand yes you're i don't know what that is and what the regulations require is a significant number of jobs the regulations do not require a specific number of jobs be tech cases repeatedly recognize there's no hard line number that constitutes a significant number of jobs so so what's important is that the ale jay has to consider whether the vocational your concern that we don't have per their analysis about how that weighting occurred but i think if we use the term weighting it's very difficult to say that that's the same as equal vocational experiment using his experience to o category containing three different d o t jobs and would divide equally among those jobs to write a job numbers which is the starting point for all of these opinions is terribly obsolete is it not your honor this court has raised my concern and the agency is aware that it you know it was published in there working in the industry currently but do we have any foundation here to make a real liability germination i said we're not in real seventy to land he's a or this is an agency receiving we don't require the same breaker but how do we make a determination as a reviewing court and how does even the a l j make a determination of right a liability for that matter  absent some understanding that the inputs themselves are reliable to say nothing of the experts method of maybe if it were explained better right understand what the expert is actually doing yes your honor i understand and we are bound by both the testimony that was given here and i don't know how do you know you can describe what it was a call operator your honor those definitions come from the dictionary of occupational titles but just briefly that that is someone who takes in updates credit card information by phone honor i think the book ational expert works in this industry and stated that there were forty five thousand of those jobs nationwide currently as at the time does anybody use a phone anymore to do things like that mentioned was that the vocational expert could state that he brought his industry experience to bear on the reality of the numbers and hear the bookish types but expressly stated that he said that he was looking at how these jobs exist and how they are performed who master's degree specializing in industry and he was president of a company but not this particular one but just in general i think we do we look at typically these types of people for vocational experts or you know people who supposed to yes consider the dictionary of occupational titles but identify how many of those jobs actually still exist and how many are there across the nation and that's how we determine if there's a significant number  have been around the barn on this issue many times i think the time has come to award the disability claim it benefits on the basis that they have not met their burden i believe that if you do that in strong enough terms we will see the process being cleaned up there are ways to come up with numbers we have statistical areas for