one of the perils of paper my name is randall forbes i represent the disability claim it mr chong nang vang many  details of this case i'm going to argue just a few general details strongest piece of evidence in favor of the disability claimant here is that he stopped working  he had been in the workforce thirty two years he was at his job right before he stopped working twenty eight years and  actually was asked to leave the last job because they saw he was failing and i do not know if that's in the record the point is is that  if he had been found at a sedentary residual functional capacity level or less he would have been found disabled based on his age and his educational background administration law judge went to great lengths here to find him not disabled they found one arm jobs that involved hardly any lifting disability case so that's the that's the context that we are in our strongest issue is and strongest preserved issue is the treating what probably would be considered several of opinions but the most important one was that he couldn't stand or walk more than an hour a day or sit for more than an hour a day that those are work for cl limitations regardless of whether you're looking at live work or sedentary work there's really other than maybe the race invest the doctor's notes were a little illegible i think that's mentioned somewhere i don't i don't see any reason here that's a ballad to reject that opinion not not in the context of deteriorating and fluctuating diabetes and not in the context of peripheral neuropathy that no doubt the physician would have been would have recognized because physicians especially family physicians treat diabetes regularly they know what peripheral like but the key is he had fluctuating diabetes and he had peripheral neuropathy and those are just several of his his problems but those problems were enough that the judge put him in the one armed jobs where he had to use the cane practically the whole time he's standing or walking actually the judge the judge diverts from the sense but the hypothetical has limits exposure done protective sights in the r c a has limited exposure to all heights so the r f c is not connected to the hypothetical and then the last in this particular the oddity in this particular odyssey is that the judge then goes back and use the thirty percent reduction in the number which was connected to the hypothetical that had to do with the using the cane standing and walking and he takes those numbers and connects them to the new hypothetical that's disconnected excuse me the new residual functional capacity his is the main residual functional capacity finding he uses the reduced numbers of us both to be connected to the hypothetical which he modified that is part of the morass of this case that's why i included all of the the bookcase journal information in fact section which you'll notice is much more detail than you usually give because i wanted you to see that i can't tell you that it's preserved it there's an argument that it can and that it's waved and if and course you end up with you look at the probably done of disability cases that ends up with a job that person doesn't want and usually with an employer who really doesn't want to work for it that's that's that's the issue we have  get into the residual functional capacity of someone it's usually have some level of a capacity where they can do things he certainly can think and he can use at least one hand maybe more and do certain jobs and i'd that's not jobs that any of won but nevertheless that's what that it's what this comes down to you're correct and i believe that overwhelming medical evidence supports disability it's almost it's almost that there could be some other postural activities that are other than lying down but no matter what your honor the point is all of those three activities being taken off the table leaves twenty two plus hours a day that according to his musculoskeletal or neurological deficits or problems mr brown actually denied those and that did make its way into dr ahmad's the l j we looked at all of this relevant evidence and it did not paint a  issues if not preserved are waved in the waiver principles it would really open up the gates to have claimants on the record to raise a host of new issues here that they did not raise in the characterization which comes from opposing counsel that's not really a characterization that you can find him e l james decision the o j limited mr bong to a fingering and handling which means no more than a  has to be connected to the hypothetical if it's not there's no substantial evidence there's no amount of reasonable nurse that is that the one armed reference come from the vocational expert who justified the thirty percent reduction which if you read it read it the thirty percent reduction jobs has no rational basis at all you just pulled it out of thin air to have reasonable notice when that happens i don't think self he was coming up with the justification as to why the total numbers he perceived in relation to the job the total national numbers were why he wanted to reduce them further because of the one armed aspect of the jobs this is in one sense this is a very very difficult case the heirs in this case are