person can sustain work related activities on a regular and continuing basis this court said over and over again a person to have a basket case to be titled to disability and to and here's what's really important we have the commissioners examining psychologist and we have the commissioner's vocational expert who says the limitations set by this examining psychologist preclude all sustained work so the claimants case in this matter is built upon the opinions of two of the commissioners  and then the following areas are all seriously limited but not precluded category coworkers public using judgment interacting with supervisors dealing with work stresses maintaining attention concentration understanding and remembering and carrying out complex job instructions maintaining personal appearances behaving in an emotionally stable manner relating predictably in social situations and demonstrating reliability and then the question was asked nine he says would you agree that all work on a sustained regular and continuing basis would be precluded in the vocational expert says yes so that's the commissioner's vocational i first asked the commissioner psychologist and against that we have the non examining he's giving those various assessments i think i think i understand the point you're making that's a little different than saying that the commission is on expert agreed that the client was able to perform regular work i mean the assessment is one thing interpreted is a different thing that's absolutely correct when i say the commissioners expert i really have got to hear i'm saying the commission is an expert meaning the book ational expert says those limitations preclude work this court intact made it clear that it's the job of the vocational expert to translate functional limitations in the into the ability to work or not work in terms of sustained capacities it's not the job of the consultative examiner to render an opinion on the ultimate yes but it's not that the fact that the book the examiner doesn't render an opinion on the ultimate capability of the claimant to work does not take away from the examiners limitations because in in i see i'm coming up on my timing i reserve my ranger i just want to get one clarification here i understand we're talking about eighteen months because he was later granted disability that's correct ok and it was for the same psychological state  disability based on the injury to his shoulder later on during the disability application process he also alleged disabling mental problems depression mostly looked like a claim and could not do any work with those limitations however when presented with the limitations given by dr tank and the vocational expert testified jobs that the clinic could do within those limitations so it's  mental related work activities which concrete what are the differences well it's a big used words you just repeat  and you're giving an argumentative answer and i'm looking for facts and what i want to know is what differences are well actually or are both both business we have both psychologists filled out checkbox and those are the work i'm looking for contradictions in the record so that a o j can go either way and if he went that way there's substantial evidence to the records that supports them that's your case so i want to know what he at the higher end of one doctor said instead of the more moderate and that the other doctor said to prevent a person from being over the work and so on i should add that those two opinions were not the only two dr taggants and dr heard's pinions were the only two opinions on claimants mental health there was also the opinion of dr johnson another psychologist who didn't impos that he possibly exaggerated his responses original israel disability claim was based on his us shoulder injury and while there was some question about the actual mechanism of that problem i believe that his doctors couldn't quite figure out what the problem was it problems thank you kathy thank you