submit your honors without conceding the first two issues namely the physical residual functional capacity finding and second the mental residual functional capacity finding the last two issues grade education in a syrian not in english the relevant regulation provides that one's educational level and their ability to read write and communicate is based on english not on a foreign language secondly the administrative law judge burton her finding in this regard based on the claimant's testimony that she could read street signs street signs can mean a multitude of things it can mean the name of the street it can mean understanding a railroad crossing it can mean not knowing what the speed limit means the case that cited on page twenty nine of opponents opening brief provides a factual basis we're not the court stated that the mere ability to understand science for a few words should not be equated with the ability to read write and understand english well not only we get a great deal of deference to the factual findings in this case is your contention that we're reviewing this because they are not return for a past relevant work the hypothetical question that she posed to the vocational expert was based on a marginal education and not on the fact that she was literate based on the assumption that her education was marginal rather than  literate the vocational expert responded that the claimant could perform the alternate job of hand packager well counsel if we accepted your argument this does not go only to the question of the military law judges finding not disabled i'm sorry on the if we accept your premise that the wrong standard was applied or wrong the actual finding was reaching the reach any of the issues or conclusions of the ministry was judge other judge made improper findings the other option would be that the court could conceivably say given the fact that she is indeed an illiterate by virtue of not being able to read write communicate in english the commissioner has not cannot meet her burden of proof that step five and therefore as a matter of law right now she should be found disabled well let me let me try her my question is your position that the finding on literacy would affect the medium we're finding or conclusion it would affect your honor thank you for clearing the question it would affect her ability to do the job that was cited by the occasional expert the vocation expert cited one medium job and that was hand pack which are under this court's decision in johnson and the commissioners ruling that's a political to these scenarios zero zero four p the vocational expert has to respond to questions from the ministry illiterate so there might have been other medium jobs conceivably that one might be able to do if they were illiterate the fact of the matter is that testimony was never offered and therefore were left to speculate if in fact there were there would be alternate medium jobs i would suggest and there's only one option for solutions to remount clarification if you're saying that how to properly framed hypothetical been given there could be potentially testimony from  locational expert that there are jobs you could have performed potentially or not you're on let's correct ok morning your honour's i'm dennis hannah representing the commissioner of social security and with me today is don tania another assistant regional council with the agency as far as this is all hands illiteracy i think something that is not being pointed out here is that she worked for twenty three years and cannery in spite of this illiteracy and that was the vocational expert when he responded to that l j hypothetical question was know just the fact that she could have worked for twenty three years in a job and she left that job not because of a disability not because of a mental or physical impairment or her illiteracy she was laid off and that's clearly i understand record that but the question is you know the combination of factors and then the hypothetical there's no diversion to the english capability one way or the other if you're saying is that the vocational expert had that in mind when it was an articulated and l g didn't explain it correct so why should we speculate as to what the cancer would have been if the explanation is as you suggest that the history of operating in a cannery demonstrates that in the realm of ham packaging jobs generally not just a carrier she happened to be working and may have learned by rote for all we  know why shouldn't we remained at least for clarification on that basis in the dictionary not all jobs require this level one literacy which requires twenty five hundred words recognition twenty five hundred words so the job in the cannery would require that as well i don't know that i mean that's the dictionary as a generalization but the fact that she had a job where there we don't know the nature of what she did and how she did it other than she worked in a cannery doesn't substitute for evidence on the record that she actually qualified for the dictionary titles criteria i mean that's that's the problem i you may be right but this is harmless error that the l j did not clarify this with a vocational expert i think that if it was remanded for this clarification it's clear what would happen then if he would say she worked for twenty three years in this job she can certainly do th unpublished one thousand year old decision from the district of illinois and i think his the citation to this case is confusing and misleading it's confusing because it's unclear it's actually a quotation from the case it could be it looks like it could be a ability to speak english there's also portions missing from this quotation with no indication that there's anything missing but then it's grossly misleading because mr sacket changed the claimant to a woman in this quote reader question at first i thought well that he's talking about the line case here because the quotation runs the whole page you don't realize that it's actually invented and it's a quotation it could be analysis pertaining to the law and  perform his previous work and the district court judge in that case remanded it so that a vocational expert could testify about his because of his what illiteracy lack of english skills whether he could do other work in the economy and we have that here in this case vocational expert has already answered just this question in the l j included in her hypothetical question no ability to read english and very limited ability to understand english and that's precisely what the district court judge wanted to discrepancy between in this instance the education in the drop us a nation in the records devoid of that explanation yes that's that is obviously missing and that is a problem but as i rule for us now if he examined the fact that this person had worked for twenty three years in a job he explained and it's very obvious that illiteracy is not a progressive disease if he this point but the only evidence of depression was from the examining psychologist report where he he found that she had mild depression and there's one comment in there that mr sacket has keyed in on in his brief but the totality of the record shows no problem she never alleged depression until the reconsideration level and also the hypothetical question to the vocational expert coworkers in the general public and i want to make sure i understand the government's position then the fact that there are those statements made in the hypothetical in your mind satisfies the requirement that they make specific findings regarding a reading of speaking colleagues we don't know how she did that job and to say that because she did that job for twenty three years means that so fact that she can do a different job is rank speculation point number two opposing not prevail on those issues and that is an assumption she can still prevail and gain relief based on the other issues waived and i gather that your comment to mean you are focusing your remarks today on one issue and surveying the rest on the braces