know with the court's permission i'll keep track of my own time but i do intend to reserve two minutes for rebuttal this is a an appeal from a district court decision remaining for further proceedings on one out of four issues and in my opinion it's the least important of the issues that were brought up by the appeal and that is the work is actually performed versus generally performed in the national economy that issue is moot if the other issues are properly resolved in the claimants favor and those issues deal with the two psychological evaluations that we have in this case and the vocational expert testimony that was watkins doesn't speak serbian and communicated with her through her daughter i've checked into that at the time of the hearing after i knew that the language barrier existed in other words after i knew that there ha interpreter and the district court really devoted one sentence to that issue saying well you're entitled to object to the examination but you didn't you object to the report as i cite in my brief the commissioners recognize the claimants have the ability an opportunity and each and every stage of the proceedings to object to evidence in their cases i would also respectfully submit that it is illogical which ones of the inconsistent he had believed and your answer to that is my answer to that is a little g s are responsible for resolving conflicts in the evidence meaning dr a says one which is the case of neil j cannot engage in a selective analysis of the evidence that only looks at evidence that supports non disability refreshment like recollection was walk ins a published opinion yes it was it certainly to be honest judge i only have noticed that to two hours before i had to hop on a plane to get here because i had to argue another case yesterday for different panel i think the issue in jurisdiction was again address rule twenty j letter which is that this is a district court judgment that remains for further proceedings and the issue would be well if its true meaning for further proceedings is that a final judgment in my rule twenty j letter i well even if there isn't a separate piece of paper a hundred fifty days later it's deemed to be a judgment and if you file an appeal even before that period the federal appellate procedure for says if you file an appeal even before that that period of time you're not prejudiced is simply she would remain for clarification or fleeting findings she found that as appropriate and then she doesn't say anything about a judgment you said remand for action this action  on the issue but having said that if it isn't a remand i mean if it is no firmest not a modification not a reversal then it seems to me those cases are distinguishable and why shouldn't we with the technical part of the judgment part then i think forty hits that head on judge i think forty says yes the appellant got some relief but the appellant is entitle to come before this court to say i didn't get all the relief i wanted talking about the realities of these cases and the fact of the matter is these people need these cases resolve this quickly as possible going back and forth back and forth and back and forth is a bad policy in when you're when you're dealing with  situation like this let me tell you quite frankly i believe if this case went back before the agency again the they would simply say ok it's not work is generally performed in the national economy its work is actually performed in serbia and under the issue was not really an issue that being that the daughter apparently acted as an adequate interpreter because the result and both served in both situations was the same me ask you maybe you can tell us is there anything in the record doesn't indicate that but there is the answer my question is that there is nothing in the record that shows there is any prejudice to the claimant on the language issue because that was never discussed the daughter didn't come in and say i did a that there was error the commissioner takes the position that this would not be a good case to remand for benefits and there are a number of reasons for that one as we have even if we look at  have inconsistency that would need to be resolved if we assume that the l g a did not resolve it appropriately when we look at the other medical records we have dr watkins report we have the records from the treating therapist two of them and we also have the report from the nine examiner not examining physicians all of those reports are contrary to the one indication and back to gary's report if we were going to remain and the agency should be allowed at least to have metairie to clarify the medical evidence if it needs to do that we take the position that it doesn't need to do that but if in fact that were the case fact finding should be done by the agency because there are some issues that have not been if you just determine that the resolution was not a good when there is there is a medical question that needs to be was off with regards to the testimony of the claimant her testimony was definite different places so even if we circuit no longer has jurisdiction because of that i admire your willingness to capitulate to the ninth circuit but as indicated earlier this is not a case that is directly governed by foreign here because the district court did not affirm did not reverse did not modify and unfortunately even if you suggest we have jurisdiction that's not going to end because we have to determine our own jurisdiction is that the position of the is not a good policy because the claimant can raise whatever issues they need to raise after the second hearing anyway and so it's it's it's kind of not  so allow the appeal of remains and this particular case the agency has taken a position we interpreted the order as a final order because the district court court finds that in light of the confusion surrounding the elegies findings at the fourth prong of the analysis re man for clarification or further findings is appropriate and then the final order is further ordered  telephone that this was the final order but that's why we gave you the opportunity to check the best because you're speaking for an agency in which you speak is the agency determination nationwide and we can put you on that so that's that's why we gave  sixty four doesn't speak english i think it sort of defies common sense that we can say that she can find employment as an elementary school teacher in english i'm not talking about how you but i don't believe that we could in that we could change the outcome by having a discussion of going to mediation with the circuit mediator and the reason i don't think so is because the regulations require that the claimant sustain the burden of proof they have to prove that they're just labels that there are criteria and so without having a l j resolve the issue we can't resolve it the l j has determined that this person doesn't meet the criteria and there's no way that we can get around that without having someone who has legal authority to do that we counsel we couldn't media to judge wallace asked me a question earlier about best cases and let me through a couple of it came to mind as i was listening to the commissioner's arguments stout decided earlier this year talks about the harmless i don't think that's harmless error pits or p i t z e r is a case that says you can't add requirements to the regulation the regulation says you're entitled to object on the basis of a language barrier it doesn't go on to say you have to individual cannot work in the proper remedy is remaining for payment of benefits and those are the cases that i would ask this court to consider on those key issues the only other point i would make is there was a statement that the walk ins  right could we just write an opinion saying we agree that step four needs clarification or do we direct the district judge to do it it seems to me that the district judge had a good with that be the proper result the assuming for purposes of argument the arena and on step four would otherwise be appropriate you never get there if you decide that the just referred to leads to remain for determination of benefits this issue about the language barrier is intellectually interesting cetera et cetera et cetera but it's entirely irrelevant if the case is properly evaluated on the previous issues th reason i feel pretty confident in saying that is the district court ruled all the issues ruled improperly obviously that's my argument but you know there were issues one two three and four in the court said you lose on one you lose on two you lose on three and we're going to remain