she continues to suffer pain and swelling at the stump of her leg pain that is often so severe that she cannot put on her purse thesis at all and is relegated to crawling on her hands and knees and even when she is able to w it is undisputed that she can walk for only four minutes before she stops to rest and that the pain in her stump exacerbated by her obesity interferes with her ability to concentrate you argue below that use is not effective ab ambulation more minutes your honor we did not argue or miss lucas did not argue below that her condition meets a listing and a she did argue below that she has problems walking out with regard to whether or not she waived the argument that her condition meets a listing in fact the district court reached the issue even though miss lucas herself did not raise it and that gives this court the power to reach that same issue now the commissioner agrees that miss lucas has no past relevant work under social security's definition of work and therefore the burden shifts to the commissioner to demonstrate that there are jobs which miss lucas could do given her age past work experience  her mental and physical limitations and that commission failed to sustain that burden because the administrative law judge asked flawed questions of the vocational witness questions which did not take through her to the problems are reflected the problems are identified and documented by the commissioner's own physician dr ryan who examined miss lucas and  they they are well they are problems not only reported but observed by him and observed by the administrative law judge who concluded it in part because miss lucas had to stop and take a break during the administrative hearing because she was in such pain that she couldn't answer questions the administrative law judge found as a fact that she had difficulties in concentration having made that finding  this court has already ruled that the administrative law judge is required to incorporate those limitations in the hypothetical question that the judge asks the vocational witness that  out in the hypothetical question left out two things your honor number one problems with concentration which is the most significant one and secondly problems with reaching which the admin is which the again  the doctor who examined miss lucas at the request of the commissioner found as an issue because she suffers from tendonitis in her right shoulder but is that the concentration problem that was clearly an issue because the two jobs which they vocational witness identified that ms lucas quit supposedly perform surveillance systems monitor and food order clerk both require enormous amounts of concentration and had the had the a l j included concentration problems or miss lucas's concentration problems and the questioning to the vocational so i have a question rapidly between those two days your the the medical evidence does not show why her condition deteriorated miss lucas agrees that her condition did deteriorate  between those two dates although she wouldn't say it was so rapidly during the that time as she was working at or attempting to work at j c penney and because of her problems with her leg and the stump of her leg j c penney first reduced her not her hours from got five days a week to four then from eight hours a day to six hours a day and then tolerated her coming in only two days a week and taking breaks whenever she needed them to sit down and rest and finally laid her off entirely because it was clear that she wasn't performing the job  june two thousand and ten that was well before the date she even applied for benefits she her condition really began going downhill in two thousand and eleven and they got her experience at j c penney reflects that she became her pain increased and increased and increased and the the the swelling in the stump of her right leg is is very well documented and she ended up in subsidized housing for the disabled but during the entire time period when she was working from two thousand and ten until she was laid off in two thousand and twelve she had a lot of help her father came up from the south to take care of her her grandmother lived with her and took care of her and then when she moved into housing for the disabled her friends came by every day a neighbor checked in on her her friend james rogers did the shopping for her and she had when even when she was working somebody drove her to work because she can't drive a car unless it would be changed to to reflect the needs of somebody who has only one leg with respect to the pain reports say no doubt seems very plausible that she  would suffer pain but that the records seem a little inconsistent on that score in that in july two thousand and twelve her prosthetist noted she had no complaint about her prosthesis and could emulate without discomfort and she testified that she walked the hearing and that also there were reports that she did not always cop cooperate with the prescribed treatment for example that she didn't follow advice about how to shower with regard to man having removed her prosthesis  initially and so on what are we to make of those kind of counter veining pieces of evidence in the record will judge carnate with regard to walking she walked to the hearing which was two and a half blocks it took her twenty five minutes she was accompanied by a friend report showed showed that occasionally she seemed to be ok but the there were many other times when she was just having great difficulty with the press thesis her it required she she had swelling in the right leg and whenever the the stump of her leg swelled up she couldn't wear the  well she didn't she didn't always take her pain medication because or it didn't take all of the pain medication because she said it made her drowsy i'm not i'm certain acacia i'm talking about prosthesis press th care there were there was at least one time yes when when the prosthetist said the prosthesis wasn't well cared for but the judge the judge did not the ministry of launch did not make a finding that if miss lucas had followed every single instruction of every single training person to the letter that she would have been able to work that so the and this this court obviously cannot be asked to affirm for reasons that the commissioner did not give that basic chandlery doctrine so that the  l j himself found the limitations that he found were limitations that miss lucas suffered irrespective of whether or not she was absolutely complying at every single time and there seem to have been one or two times when she could have been more compliant but that the large picture i'm sorry for ceases to the shower which damaged the proceed well yes your honor but that doesn't interfere with her ability to work at it means she needed a new press the usus which she got and then apparently there were no there were not problems with the prosthesis thereafter but there were still problems miss lucas's ability to to walk and to function as a regular human being right when you reserve two minutes for a battle thank you thank you your honor here from the government meet the listing but the court hears it determined that when a player wouldn't specifically represented by counsel at a district court level in order to preserve the argument for the circuit court she has to make the specific argument and that's that what happened here she didn't bring it up at all she's basically said that the district court mentioned it in the decision so it should be preserved but we feel that it's not preserved because she she never brought it up to the commissioner at any three prior stages of review through for the sake of this question that it was preserved ulation is being able to walk well enough to complete your activities of daily living i mean able to walk well enough to commute to and from work and that's the definition that the state a t c medical sultans apply when they're reviewing the medical evidence so in other words the state agency medical consultants reviewed all of her records and they determined that she could walk well in if the computer activity is the only living and that she can walk well enough to commute to and from work as i said those guys are experts at social security include whether she effectively emulated the hypothetical to the vocational expert limited to walking for minutes at a time and that was the limitation doesn't require more than what the l g did she made the same statement to talk a lot of the consultant a psychologist again stated that she could handle all of her activities of daily living on her own that was in september and october of two thousand all of it around that same time she also completed an activities of daily living questionnaire and all that she also indicated that she completed a wide range of activities of daily living on her own moreover it is the observations of her treating sources in treated her over a long period of time in june two thousand and twelve is when he said that she was a wholly independent ambulating who could care for herself and cross period to raise he's the one who says that she should walk wanted two miles he went as far as to say that she could go dancing work in retail so apparently what he's observing isn't consistent with what was lucas is saying also we also have a miss look at his statement and as late as november two thousand and twelve i believe she was that yale new haven hospital and she told the doctor there that she felt normal and fine but was not in any pain and that doctor observed that she was walking and exhibited no swelling in her stop so basically it's of came down to credibility she was alleging that her condition got a lot worse but when we looked at the evidence of record specifically her medical sources it just wasn't confirmed by any of you believe this will ever work again yes i do levels so that should be weight but setting this waiver issue aside look at his challenge to the hypothetical question for not having any limitations in reaching is just i'm persuasive because she hasn't shown any limitations in region and shown to be that she reported consistently well you say she recorded consistently but we gave her off warm and which we asked her to specify which of her abilities were affected by her condition and on that form of she checked boxes for standing walking lifting chariot and there was a box right next to them for reaching and she didn't check that box at all which is a strong indication that she didn't feel she had any limitations in reaching also when she completed her disability application she listed several impairments is the reason why she couldn't work and she didn't list any apparent that had anything to do with her shoulder condition moreover at the l j here it she had the opportunity to question the vocational expert and even though she did question him about certain limitations she did not mention anything about her reaching limitations it seems that the only evidence of wreckage she had to support any sort of reach a limitation is that she went to dr ryan for a consultant examination and during the course of that examination he has to raise or are we she did so she complained of pain so that's why i said sounds like a mild case of shoulder tendonitis but he then went on to say that she completed the whole full range of motion and more importantly when he was assessing her limitations here says limitations in standing walking lifting kariya him in a sense any limitations in reaching so apparently he didn't feel she had any limitations  between level of reasoning between the l g s limitation to simple routine repetitive tasks and the ged level of three for the identified occupations where you have the o t the five reason a level three a being able to apply common sense to written in oral instructions and miss look this is a high school graduate in diagrammatic form i mean it presupposes a certain level of abstract reasoning  be what we have in the record to demonstrate that she could perform those tasks but we just have her statements that she said she had no problems understanding written spoken instructions she said she had difficulties with concentration and she said she had no case actually jones read where the connecticut felt that the limitation to simple routine work was consistent with the ability to do resume level three work and then on appeal this court affirm of connecticut and district court of connecticut's decision that reason level three was consistent with short simple instructions and her high school diploma and her previous job history stablish is that she could handle level three and the fact that she after high school she went on and earned a certificate in business administration she went to college for a few years after high school i see my time is up if there are any further question the rules of this court don't require such idea identity between what you argue in as long as you raise the issue in the district court hodgy how it is she cou ched it in that the she argued that the questioning to the vocational expert was flawed a moment  shit so she she raised the specific issue she did not raise every single argument it or your claim in support of the issue that she's raising now but there's no rule that the the  brief that eight and a plaintive submits to or that an appellant submits to this court needs to be word for word identical to the brief that was submitted in the district court as long as the issue itself was raised and the issue was very much raised and it was i don't think the commissioner disputes that the issue itself was raised now with regard to  proper press that it and no stumps welling should be able to walk a mile or two every day doesn't mean that she actually could walk a mile or two every day and the ailed say quite reasonably didn't rely on the  es hopes of what might happen if which were really aspirational and stated as aspirational rather than than what she was currently able to do and in conclusion we would ask that this court reversed and remanded for a new hearing where the l j is directed to ask the vocational expert questions which reflect all of the limitations which the a l j himself or herself finds regarding miss lucas and secondly that the a l j explicitly consider whether or not miss lucas's ability to  opinions which says it's not that effective ambulation must include the racial component as well as the component of being able to walk on it thank you thank you both