question of whether the administrative law judge treated a regulatory preamble in the federal register as if it had the force and effect of law on this side of the case on a basis which is impermissible isn't any doubt that under this court's decision in any coal company but maybe more importantly under three very powerful supreme court decisions in wyeth mead and christians in by this court as a matter of fact in cases where the court held that the administrative law judge consulted it but didn't rely on it that's not a conclusion you can reach in this case well when you said could rely on might be a this i believe not your honor was the reason not it's not is that in this case the administrative law judge relied on nothing but the preamble for reaching every single conclusion that she reached and she didn't seventy one through eighty of the hendricks we talk about in the appendix is her opinion each time there was a question presented by the evidence she turned to the preamble and said but i'm going because of the preamble i reject this opinion or accept this opinion because it's consistent or not consistent but let me say there's one thing about this case which is beyond of it let me say this but we're basically you talking about her statements during the supportive of what this administrative law judge said as a matter of fact if you go to the documents relied upon by the department of labor in the noble principly the the nation has to like a patient safety and health criteria document in that document which department relies on all over the place and we only problem with that that's fine document that refutes the interpretation of the preamble that this is a ministry to judge me let me let me prove  this court's decision in director versus roe williams sources eastover mining that the this court holds and she relies on to medical reports the reports of doctor outer wall and am city and thus don't meet the standard in this court for substantial evidence because they are given those are our opinions that give a bottom line with no explanation at all but it's not a substantial evidence matter the thing is that the case is not when you have a question of whether the quote whether she  illegal reliance and so it is a question of law and you don't reach but everybody says this court is well you can't reach a substantial evidence discussion until you have gotten past the question of whether she broke the law do this they rated seventy five page opinion blah blah lots of evidence but what counts is her rationale for the resolution of conflicting evidence we argue secondarily is that the evidence relies on which of these that this man's condition was caused by smoking exclusively not as mining and they mention that he had a asthma that was reversible he mentioned that that his f e b one f b c ratio was consistent with smoking but not with mining and also that the miners emphysema and also the lung cancer but nobody's claiming that was related his emphysema was of a type called both some pacy which is unrelated to mining though the interesting thing is nothing in the preamble refutes that and the administrative law judge at every place and i'm looking at it the her opinion appendix at seventy five seventy eight seventy  says nothing about any of that except to the extent that experts and didn't rely on your ex well she discredited them for reasons that come out of her head not from even the preamble not from science from nothing and the dust according to the follow g expert that that it wouldn't have had any effect on his situation at all that was accepted nobody is really are green the question is whether the condition which was serious was caused by explain it she gives it all for seventy five pages she never says what there is in this preamble that supports her decisions and heard every single decision she makes is reference with respect to something that will not much respect to the reasoning or documentation of the doctor but with respect to something you know pretty well and she gets it all wrong never explains what it was she really thought was the coal mining haven gaijin coal mining for how many years is that made worse well right and how does that happen when i'm in seven out of the mines for twenty years we don't know how exactly we're not bollards here i understand you don't know exactly how the their examination of the loans your honor i welcome you to read the opinions of emma seti and edgar wall and you will see that they're nothing but a bottom line they don't give any explanation don't cite any authority it's just the a standard kind of of report that you see in these cases with no explanation that's accepted and it really isn't even documented and it's never none of them answer the points that are made but the specialists about why it was smoking why it was exclusively smoking and these things are not even arguable but the simple scene is not due to mining period not ash found that this f a v would be one if you see ratio and that's what we're trying to deal with here we see this in other cases too please don't give these administrative law judges license to just do whatever they want without having some documentation from someplace that supports what they're doing specifically we think that this is a case that of course has been decided by the judge in a very extensive a painted one of the longest i think i've ever seen it's been affirmed and up pale by the benefits review board which the judges the point in these cases and in their brief a judge can find certain parts of the decision can't support a client other than a big reason to others not all the judges support the conclusion that this man is totally d looks like will start coming through the you know a lot with polarization on the on the slab but it was in fact found to be black lung so all the doctors in one way or another the judges it's sort of reminds me of putting together a quilt you know the judge has his binds this environs there and in this case all this all the stars aligned all these things came together and the didn't think about how much time it would take to fill out the form and you know doctors black to take things off with these doctors went into detail on these were eating on these poor question on and all the other aspects of the physical exam and well of course you have the ten year presumption that if you have black lung and you have more than ten years that that you have you have a certain resumption with the judge and the doctors and specially judge stafford pointed out course this as we've pointed out in the brief the specific issues here that the objection to the preamble which the judge did not rely on as the so reason for her nineteen thirty five and he born in the middle of the depression and worked of course as many people in eastern kentucky have had only a fourth grade education could barely read rap and had that the core of hold the decision and and there is we feel that through substantial evidence to support the judge's decision you know in into these cases over a period and world and he said well we work together only these cases are always issues we don't see each other but we rely on each other and i think that's what the district director did and like this what the  because it doesn't meet this court's criteria in your decisions in roe and williams are so you still are but you know another thing here that's really credibly troubling you know this in this sort of a few others you know they believe that it is appropriate to have this massive transfer of liability and responsibility they assumed this judge this judge made for others that others like it is a but there ought to be this mess well that is the context and what the ale jay says he's contrary to the department's findings which reject the notion that a lung impairment caused by smoking is distinct from that caused by coal dust exposure partly made no such finding there is no such fine it met a side trip it is just plain wrong and you know for us to be bound by that that paid benefits in this case and you're going to get a chance to decide to skate and so we're going to have to do with lots of cases when in