question including the limits not described by the dot or the c e o or any other administrative notice publication it therefore being impossible for that to be the full acknowledge the lack of any non dot basis indicating he was reading directly from the dot and nothing further they l j adopted that opinion without discussion in the opinion and the written decision and that opinion was outcome determinative at step five of the sequential evaluation and this case turns on the burden of production of vocational evidence that is the commissioner's burton five that is found in four hundred four fifteen sixty twenty c f r it is that in order to support a finding that you are not disabled at this step we are responsible for providing evidence that demonstrates that other work exists what constitutes that support and what constitutes the commissioner having provided evidence that demonstrates that section can be interpreted in light of the general duty to consider all evidence on a social security case for whether it is reliable sufficient consistent ambiguous valuable persuasive these are the terms used in both the prior and the current versions of four or four fifteen twenty b with reliable coming from four or four fifteen sixty six social security's regulatory standard appropriately lesser than the federal rules of evidence but not nothing and alle j by policy by the commissioners policy in how x is two way an opinion a vocational opinion not a treating physician opinion but a vocational expert's opinion that's it i dash to dash five dash forty eight the ves opinion is not binding on my l j the l j must weigh of the ease opinion along with all other evidence that was not done here there's no indication that it was done if it were done it would reveal that there was no basis extra dot for the vocational expert opinion there are two ways to view the question raised in this appeal as a question of apparent conflict an application of zero zero dash for pete the ruling or as a question of the commissioner burden of production and the duty to consider opinion evidence appropriately including vocational opinion evidence i've argued the point primarily as the latter but this court may consider the former equally the difference is really just terminology the parties agree there is no direct conflict here this is a question of vocational opinion that is beyond not described by the da while s s r zero zero four p and the commissioners policy includes references to this situation where ve opinion is about information not listed in the dot we argue the way to view those references and the regulatory structure in general is to leave in place the commissioner's burden production of vocational evidence at step five the only burden the commissioner acknowledges throughout this question with a duty to either confirm it is fully supported by the administrative notice publications which include the dot  to obtain and then consider additional bases those additional bases are described in zero zero four p as other reliable publications information obtained directly from employers or from a ves experience and job placement or career counseling that's a quote from zero zero four p there is alternatively the welsh versus colvin case from the circuit from this court that said ves personal experience observing the jobs listed or her and her professional reliance on a survey of employers and employees report again a reliable vocational journal was sufficient that's what we see that standard that language it did here in a welsh the l j stated in the hearing you've gone to to the vocational expert you've gone beyond what they say in the docket and you've explained the basis for your opinion today ok the engage the ve and a discussion of the basis for answers that could not find support in the dot and this court treated those findings with appropriate deference they were fact issues for the algae to resolve  the l j did so so this court declined to further consider the next steps which were whether the ves personal experience was insufficient or whether the scholarly literature was unreliable that's the only standard we see afield of the da and however baseless it undermines and renders pointless the last decade of improvements to social security decisional quality from the circuit while the commissioner take steps to lessen the obligation of l j is to consider evidence and to articulate rationale is are some specific aspect of the east testimony that is defective that would have been brought out  end and finds it acceptable what legal standard requires a full explication of the justification for the reliance the duty that is the commissioners to produce a vocational opinion that addresses the question in the question included five functional limits that the dot does not anticipate  and that is why i view this issue as so similar in reasoning to this court's opinions that when there is a mental impairment a vocational expert is required because the dot does not answer the question or do the in the grads being based on the same information this court's opinions that when there is a conflict that is direct or apparent for example overhead reaching with a limitation that a vocational expert should address that and they all j should consider that basis that rationale the logic behind that is that you have a vocational expert present in the hearing in the vocational expert can explain references opinions information beyond the dot and when you have a limitation on memory when you have a limitation on decision making when you have a limitation not exertional mental that the da is not addressing that the department of labor does not study that we don't have in one of the administratively adopted references that's why the vocational expert is sitting there and the point of having the vocational expert in the hearing is not merely to swear in someone who would just give the answer and that's the end of the analysis the point is to look into the basis to have there be a reason to accept the opinion of the fifteen sixty standard is evidence that demonstrate not just could demonstrate because the vocational expert said the ultimate conclusion not presumably orus or an assumption isn't that taking care of in that presumably the vocational expert is qualified by training and experience and typically the record will include the their resume and background the qualifications of the vocational ex qualified to give these opinions yes what would it be that there is an additional basis a can to the additional basis sought when there's a direct conflict if the resume were sufficient to establish a resolution to that lack of information if the resume were sufficient it would be sufficient in the direct conflict situation as well if a vocational expert testifies that a job  sedentary when the dot says it's light but the resume explains that the vocational expert has a background we require the l j to inquire about that difference and resolve it and describe that resolution in the  any conflict in this case between the opinion and the the o t it's our position that there well there is no direct conflict it is possible to view the this lack of a vocational expert's opinion and that prevents us from having step five analysis that is sufficient account so i think i think i understand your about the vocational expert's testimony in the old days ultimate disability decision the standard the deponent is requesting is found nowhere in the security act nowhere near agency regulations and nowhere in a circuit case law determination on starkman is based on a selective citation of regulations and agency regulatory guidance some of it taken out of context some but not even a fact at the time of the old days decision in this case and in through that is asking the court to imply an entirely new standard to the o'jays use of occasional expert testimony if the court were to adopt the patent standard it would represent a fundamental change and an unworkable case because this is a non adversarial process it's more of an inquisitive process both sides are not both sides but both the l j and the claimant are free to ask numerous questions of the v mary and the book ational testimony that they should have gone a step further and said well then how did you come up with these jobs or something to that effect and that's what the  do is there any doubt you feel that there's any obligation the claimant's attorney to ask that question if they're represented and should the rule be any different if they're on represented v no there's no obligation for the claims attorney to ask if there's a conflict of act the agency is taking upon itself to resolve conflicts at step five i'm went way over the we're not talking about as i understand this issue isn't complex this is just stuff it's not questioning to establish a foundation for the vocational expert's testimony that foundation is set forth because the vocational expert is in fact an expert their c v or resume is included in the in the record in this proceeding claimant has to be given an opportunity to review that if there are any questions about whether or not the vocational expert is qualified those can be posed a claim can object to a vocational expert serving as an expert that didn't happen in this case well the argument at least in the brief there is an argument made that in this case the the a l j yes an argument would be instead of  performing the function of an expert relying on his own experience education etc instead he simply read from that from the d o t i would argue that's a misreading of the record judge sheppard in this case in response to a specific question about whether his testimony was consistent with the d o t vocational i said yes and something the fact of i'm looking at it right here first of all the assumption any time there's a book is just vocational summoned based on their expertise so they're going to be testifying based in part on their expertise in addition if you look at the other aspects of the v a s testimony at the hearing the v testified about an issue involving elevating feet and the vocational expert basically said based on my experience or from what i know that would not be allowed by an employer vocational expert also offered testimony in response to alternate hypothetical questions posed by the claimants representative about absenteeism again that's not something covered by the d o t so obviously it's coming based on the vocational experts experience and academic training now assume i haven't looked at the transcript here but i assume that they vocational expert came up in response to the hypothetical question he came up with some jobs that that this hop if that it will climb it could be described in the question some jobs that that person could perform yes you're right yes and there were jobs that are found in the d o t it he go further and he or she go further and testifies to the number of and the b s testimony the parties agree that's not present in this case it's contention that the lack of a basis for the vocational expertise is a conflict that rely on the vocational experts opinion because he was an expert finally very quickly and its position that an l j is retired required to articulate the weight that's intel to a vocation experts opinion  location of the regulation that applies to medical opinion evidence to other evidence in the record including in our case location like stripping in the regulations require an l j to state the weight of forty two medical opinion not a vocational pinioned it's true the elite is not bound by vocational expert opinion in cases where they choose not to utilize that opinion they will articulate the reasons for that in their decision but here as in the vast majority of cases i've seen  yes the government stated that we are unable to point to a regulation requiring the weighing of anything more than a medical opinion we cited to a policy hallux for that that specifically states that vocational opinion is to be weighed because it's not binding on the l j and last i wanted to address their their statement that this is an unworkable standard while they acknowledge that it is to a much greater extent standard in the seventh circuit they cited that they have a lot of claims each year millions of claims filed and nothing else very similar to citing only to the da when the doc doesn't really provide the answer the actual answer is a couple more questions  the seventh circuit there's absolutely no evidence that hearings take longer or that l j are less productive the very same website explains that the seventh circuit hearing offices are in fact per l j per day a bit faster than the second and the sixth so there is a bit more to be gathered by asking another question i think counsel thanks both of you gentlemen for your presence and the arguments you provide to the court will take your case