is now them deny his disability insurance benefits because of that move the extra work over the nine years of proceedings the case has been not marred by the elegies failure to follow the language of the past relevant work regulation the l g s violation of his supports their conclusion that his past work as a movie extra was too briefly and sporadically performed both on a daily weekly basis and an average of eight hours a week and over time at most two years out of the relevant fifteen alternative point and we argue that the a l j erred in accepting that stipulation for three reasons the first is that it was in essence a stipulation to a legal conclusion and it's well established law that the legal effect of admitted facts cannot be stipulated are controlled by counsel the a l j here was given a specific order and remained from the district court and in fact even the appeals council in sending the case back to the e mail j also noted that there needs to be a tourney's question then you probably say yes pastoral that were true and it prior counsel didn't question him on this point but i think we have to recall and as i pointed out in both the opening and reply brief that these social security proceedings are non adversarial in nature and moreover there's this circuit has the case laws stating that even when the claimant is represented by counsel the l g has a duty to fully and fairly develop this on the record because the hearing are not adversarial in nature thank you says the lord versus sullivan and in that case the claimant was questioned and there was testimony in vocational expert testimony it wasn't simply a case where there was no hearing and so we rely on cases like the lauren versus order coupled with this independent duty of the day to fully and fairly develop the facts on the records compels the finding that the a l j erred in accepting the stipulation whether or not we characterize it as you know impermissibl rulings regarding the duty to develop the record third even if the court determines that hampton's movie extra work was passed relevant work the l j nonetheless erred in relying on the vocational expert's conclusion that hansen can return to it because it doesn't require his one significant limitation which is overhead reaching this conclusion we argue flatly contradicts the dictionary of occupational titles which states that movie extra work requires frequent reaching in any direction and it's also internally inconsistent for on the one hand the l g stated that movie extra work does not require overhead and that  the testimony upon which the l g a rely on the other hand in an earlier part of the record she stated that it can require overhead reaching so we point this court to the persuasive opinion of the eighth circuit in reckless versus hecla or were in such a situation where there was internally inconsistent vocational expert testimony the a l j did not discuss the testimony that was more favorable to the claim it that every man would be in order there as well there's no there's no doubt if you take the d regulations i think your point's well taken but here in the record what we have is occasional experts who say well i've been on a lot of movie sets and i don't think it requires reaching and then use the his decision it's not even clear in that part of the transcript whether or not that five percent is a reference to movie extra jobs that require overhead reaching or movie extra jobs that require frequent overhead reaching because i believe the ve said are you asking me about the frequency so that part of the record is unclear but we argue that her opinion on that point while well taken is not sufficient because it falls in line with pinto vs mass nourie was just a broad in generic refutation of the dictionary   patient titles without any particular i's distinction beyond her say so and this court caution in pinto that especially that these sort of generic resolutions of conflicts between the vocational expert testimony and the dictionary of occupational titles really aren't sufficient i think that coupled with even the internal inconsistency in the testimony supports that finding here this testimony was not  evidence to support the l g s conclusion that he could return to his past work as it's performed in the national economy in a little over two minutes left i want to say yes developed a record regarding the claimants past jobs and also that the l j properly considered the claimants residual function of functional capacity and whether or not that residual functional capacity allowed him to return to any of his past jobs despite d in a vacuum the l j noted that in order to save time would counsel stipulate that the extra work but not the actual work was substantial gains like unity and counsel eventually agreed to that stipulation she didn't have to she was an experienced disability attorney and she knows that not only were the earnings above the presumptive level for substantial gains collectivity but the regulations also direct that in order for a job to count constitute past relevant work it has to have been long enough for the claimant to have learned how to do it and although claimant argues that his work was too sporadic or two on and off to present to past relevant work we point out has never argued that he didn't learn how to do that job that it wasn't performed long enough for him to learn how to do it and with respect to the fifteen year prior period it's we also would like to point out that the jobs don't have to be performed for a significant number of th fifteen years they just have to then perform long enough for the claimant to learn how to do them which is what happened in this case the district court also determined that the l j properly relied on the vocational experts testimony and  jobs include any overhead reaching i don't think is particularly relevant when the supreme court is that a claim that can return to a past job even if it doesn't exist anymore so that the l t a properly found that a claim could return to the past or no you i agree with my point that yes he has to because of his age he has to have been found with a light r c which no one challenges he would have to be found to be able to return to one of his past jobs to be  sorts of conflicts and in this case i think that the the second who testified at length regarding the errors made by the first is enough to determine that the l t properly resolve the conflict so in sum i would like to say that the court found that the l g complied with its own remain an order you know they did not air and accepting the stipulation and the locational expert properly explained the discrepancy between her findings and the dictionary occupational title for the questions and thank honour's on the point about learning how to do the work under the past relevant work regulation i'd just like to point out that our argument is that the briefly performed and often on section of that regulation is a separate caution that has to be heeded especially here in this case that was not to move out is the social security administration's purpose of actually putting it into the regulation secondly as to the conflict  zero dash for p states that when there is a conflict between a dictionary of occupational titles and the vocational experts testimony the l j must in his decision specifically state how he resolve that conflict we have an e l t is decision here is a statement of the conflict in another itself not how it was resolved secondly that regulation and even a case that the commissioner relies on johnson versus s order for this for a nail ga to rely on vocational expert testimony that conflicts with the deal t there has to be particularized testimony about specific jobs have to be particularized distinctions and not brought in generic testimony there's nothing on the vocational experts resonates even suggests that she was an expert in local los angeles movie extra work finally shorts are on your question about whether or not the claimant ever testified about overhead reaching no he didn't she was never asked and this we argue goes again to the failure of the a l j to fully and fairly develop the facts on the record it's unclear whether at hampton can return to the passport cuellar functions of his work as he performed it because we don't even know that required overhead reaching one question as i recall the record you might be able to correct me if i'm wrong what you found difficult in the industry i was an extra specifically stated that there were many jobs that he couldn't do because they were too strenuous and at a hour to fifty one he testified that you have to be involved in whatever they say you have to be involved in and that included whatever physical work that they tell you to do and then i'm not sure if it's on that page or around jack to fifty two the following page where he testifies about the various physical movements that would sometimes be required have the gratitude of our court