so it's tough that you've ruled on this issue before but basically at the administrative law judge hearing the judge will ask a vocational expert are there any jobs someone can do with these particular limitations the vocational expert was say the person can do these jobs and say well is your testimony consistent with the dictionary of occupational titles and the selected characteristics of occupations which is a companion to the dictionary of occupational titles and the vocational expert will say yes the attorney and the judge don't necessarily have access to the resources at their fingertips because there's thousands of jobs out there and they assume the vocational experts telling the truth and so after the hearing the decision attorney may look up the selected characteristics of occupations and say wait a minute the judge limited this person to occasional fingering this this the t says frequent fingering that's that's that's not true and the judge according to at least our position is the judge has a duty under this ruling to determine if there's an obvious sort of apparent conflict with the information in the absent the report itself i'm talking about of the rule and zero zero dash for peace in the absence of that is there anything either in the rag or the statute  that requires the administrative law judge to do more than simply ask the v whether there was a conflict actually there's no duty in the regulations even ask what was happening what obligation to the l j have and what's the source of the obligation ok this all the source of the obligation is that the ruling says he has an obligation to ask the vocational expert his testimony conflicts with the d o t and if it does that he has to resolve the conflict and explain his basis for making his decision so it isn't enough simply to ask him whether there was a conflict he says no and leave it at that it depends on which circuit you're in i'm talking about what you think we ought to be saying in this case in the circuit in this case i'm saying that if it's an obvious conflict for instance if he says you know the job requires a sit stand option well the sit stand option is not in the d o t so that would be obvious but if you look at the selected characteristics of occupations it's clear that it says frequent handling and fingering and and the judge to say i'm just focusing there is no question there is a conflict between what the ve says and the d o t says in this case right that's clear all i'm asking you to tell me is what the obligation of the l j was in the face of a conflict between the vocational expert on the one hand and the ruling on the order of the d o t on the other what did he have to do and did he do what he had to do  the obligation is to look at the selected characteristics of occupations and compare them to his findings to see if there's a conflict and if there wasn't a conflict that's right but you said there was a conflict if there is a there is a conflict here let's start with that assumption what was he obliged to do that he didn't do resolve the conflict like he could have said i've looked at these selected characteristics or keep patients i've heard the testimony of the occasional expert and i've decided to accept the information in the d o t rather than the testimony of vocational expert because and then explain or you could say i'm going to send supplemental iraq to tory's to the vocational expert  mr vocational expert who said it was consistent but it's not can you explain like is it your opinion that despite what's in the d o t that the job only requires occasional fingering or were you just mistaken and do you agree with the d o t and then once he gets that explanation then he can accept the testimony of the v or he can reject it right put your argument is he failed to do any of that and therefore we have to do  it's since since we already know there was a conflict to go back and ask the vocational expert on these jobs do you agree that there's a conflict are we already know there's a conflict do you in your opinion based on your experience does the job require only occasional fingering or were you just giving that opinion because of what you read what you thought was in the d o t and give us an explanation as to why your opinion is different than the d o t and resolve that conflict as to whether you're going to accept the d o t information or the v information since just some of those yes years the testimony he goes back to his the the government i think the government is bound by their own rulings and the courts should enforce those rulings and i think that was an incorrect interpretation of that old case that said the court isn't bound by the rulings every other circuit has said y rulings are binding it's just a matter how do we apply these rulings and whether it has to be an apparent conflict or obvious conflict but i think the ruling is in bringing in the way that a statute is binding a ruling isn't binding in the way that our case precedent is binding maybe we ought to give deference to it but i don't know that we are legally bound to enforce this rule to maybe sound reasons for doing it but i don't know that as a matter of law we are obliged to very misunderstood that no i think i think that the court you know if if if the ruling has the forces there if the ruling is adopted  by the governmental agency i think the court does have the obviously if we say that the l j has to resolve the conflict where de facto forcing the ruling our right right let me ask you this about position that in terms of deference whether it's our or skidmore probably not chevron that's a question of statutory interpretation question your point is different you say forget about that the regulations themselves say that the ruling is binding binding not on you court but on the administration and if and there's prejudice right so it doesn't matter what kind of deference we give or exactly  and yeah and that's i mean pretty much in a nutshell that's my time thank you really gives one specific duty to investigate says more than that and says more than that let me read to you i've got your own under the heading purpose i'm talking about social security rulings zero zero dash for p it says purpose and i quote in particular this ruling emphasizes that before relying on the or v s evidence to support a disability determination or decision our adjudicators must not may must call him identify and obtain a reasonable explanation for any conflicts between occupational evidence provided by the v and the information in the d o t and his burden goes beyond that it says and explain in the determination or decision how any conflict that has been identified has been resolved did this a o l j identify and up tain a reasonable explanation for a conflict between the o t and explain in its determination how any conflict has been resolved and if he did that show me because i thought all he did was he simply asked the one question was there a conflict the said no he washed his hands walked away and said that was the beginning middle and end of his obligation i don't see how that was the beginning middle and s's evidence appears to conflict with the d o t the educator will train a reasonable explanation for the apparent conflict did he do that or he asked the if he still feel that first part of the requirement by asking to be there was let me let me i guess so the ve made a mistake in the answer to the question did me your honor arguably yes however the elegy fulfilled his duty to investigate the claimants attorney could have there's only one specific duty as far as inquiring about a conflict and that's to ask to be l j fulfilled that the plaintiff's attorney could have question that he could have his say here's the problem with that argument at least for me and i want you to help me with it we have said repeatedly the supreme court of the united states has said that these hearings are not adversarial in each or their inquisitorial in nature of the sort that the obligation falls on the decision maker the a l j to compile all of the revolution evidence he doesn't just rely on what each of the two sides do because in many instances the applicant is pro the petitioner is pro se and so it's a very different kind of setting it's not your normal adversarial setting where the court looks to the parties to eliminate the issues and draw the conflict together the  j supposed to do that so it's not i don't know that it would be a simple answer to say and i think you're dead right in this record the lawyer said nothing sat on his thumbs was silent throughout right so there was nothing there but if his obligation transcends in this inquisitorial setting simply relying on that didn't he failed to live up to the terms of this rule and i don't believe so your hon think it's important to note a couple of things one is that the o j can rely on the case will expert testimony under this ruling even if it conflicts with the d o t but there are certain procedural requirements that that this rule that's really requires testimony it's good evidence under this ruling is good evidence let me put the question as simply as i can one did the ail jay recognize a conflict and two did the resolve a conflict there was no apparent conflict at the hearing this s s or pertaining but there's a conflict that's clear you you said earlier you agreed with me that there was a conflict between the d o t and the the eat so whether he said it or not if you looked at the d o t you couldn't walk away without saying there was a conflict did he identify and resolve the conflict your honor he did not but at the time of the hearing and at the time that they ought to issue his decision there was no apparent conflict the duty to resolve apparent conflicts and if you read the plain language of the u s s r it clearly is talking about conflicts that are evident at the time of the hearing but certainly even at the time of the l j issued his decision even at that time worth where there's a lawyer in another room where the protesters claim it's pro se well you're wrong and it terms of the jays duty or do you think that's the case r if it wanted the other to do that it would it would be in the u s s r and the fact that it's so specific about what an elegy has to do to investigate i think that that that it would basically be reading a whole new section into the into the s s are asking the to investigate that now if if the conflict becomes evident in some other manner for example by question by the by the by the claimant or claim that attorney and that would also raise a duty for the l j two to obtain a reasonable explanation and compared it then that then he could have submitted something after the hearing today o j and said look you know i want this to be i want to explanation for this and at that point i think the l j arguably i do think the s s are only applies to the hearing but at that point i think that it would be reasonable for the  to investigate at that point because it's been raised but here it wasn't raised before this issue was issued it wasn't raised at the appeals council level it was raised for the first time it's of no moment that the the hearing is inquisitorial rather than adversarial and the law puts a burden on the elegy to serve the role of almost continental facts parter you know what i mean when i'm sitting right there a continental system rather than an adversarial kind of system the  j has a peculiar function in up taming the relevant facts and reaching a determination is a very different function than a court and general court of law in general jurisdiction each side has a burden etc this guy's got the obligation to dig up the facts find him and it seems to me identify and resolve a conflict i understand your position you know it's just maybe i'm misreading it and that's why i'm just asking you to sort of help me come out what i should do with this the ruling and by the way nowhere in this ruling do i see the for apparent conflict i see the word conflict used three or four times and once i see the word possible conflict did i miss it is apparent in there yes and where would that be that's and she testified that particular with a table or her job but it did not involve ball fine detail work involved inspecting larger items and that she'd been on site observe the job so she clearly has you know she explained what the decision thank you i think we've covered everything i don't want to just take up five minutes of your time where you are going to say you have any questions i'd be happy as we understand that the party's position to go the next case