that occupation they get paid disability benefits regardless of whether they can do something else the ending occupation standard is a much more stringent standard under which you have to take a look at the entire person you take a look at what their skillset is what their relatively little case law on what exactly the any occupation standard has to or relates to in terms of the exact amount of money what it means though from what the case law that we actually  case law that we've cited i think one of the cases was a person who could earn only forty five percent of his prior income that was sufficient to provide him a nothing come under any occupation and are the only evidence in this  record it's not it's not it's not numerical standard under the policy again what you're looking at is what's reasonable to take this person as a whole what's reasonable to put this person into however the only evidence in this record is from  vocational expert dr janssen who did an analysis of ms aram's education training experience for vocational possibilities did a transferable skills analysis and a job survey a labor market fifty seven thousand dollars a year her prior three year average was right around sixty five thousand so if you take a look at what she was doing in the three years prior to her disability we're looking at between fifty some odd percent to ninety some odd percent of her clear that the reason for that was because he's not a vocational specialist he had not done any sort of transferable skills analysis nor had he done any sort of an evaluation of what jobs might be available to her he actually deferred to a vocational and just on the last point with regard to that i think that i did want to mention that the plaintiff in a briefing miss erema her briefing task suggested at various points that in order for the any occupied yes the any occupation standard to apply durham would have to get a job paying her eighty thousand dollars a year and i simply wanted to point out to the court the any occupation standard is does not require income matching taken as a whole we're looking again at again is this reasonable or standard putting somebody into something that is reasonable to expect them to do considering their prior situation in m taken the second year before she became disabled in try to write into the policy some requirement that for the any occupation standard to apply that that museum has to meet that  indeed i will go back and say that dr johnson's range that he predicts was between thirty four thousand nine hundred and fifty seven thousand three hundred per year occupations that she's able to do and before the relevant period security administration works off of these presumption he's very detailed regulations about how to decide because they decide millions of claims each year and it's unknown whether that was ever reviewed or updated in the two and a half years before course is that the social security administration didn't have dr christianson testimony that his patient should and could have been working at some occupational along we know that the social security administration didn't have the two medical examination saying that this lady could work dr christianson testified unequivocally yes i as a doctor knowing first lady knowing my patient and just being a person i think there are jobs she could have done he didn't know what because he's not a vocational specialty just one very specifically i didn't do a job training and now so in the fact one of the thing it takes training to do any job it takes training to run a cash register if not run one before any time somebody goes into a job you have to get training the way the plaintiff is trying to construe the standard that well if she has to have any training if yesterday something she's not done before then she cannot meet any occupation standard that actually turns with any occupation standard into an occupation standard and of course that would be i