while nail j need not consider every item of evidence he or she may not ignore entire lines of evidence which is what support a finding of disability to enable meaningful review dale j must build a logical an accurate bridge opinion of his limitations was there were said that his difficulty with standing walking bending over and lifting yes sean and that was not considered to know that was not considered as a thing right so there so there were two there are two areas in that examination one where mr huber gave his subjective complaints and there's also a bold heading which says medical so he may have come for it likely would have come to a different residual functional capacity in that light work requires it's defined as requiring a good deal of standing and walking  but it's it's our theory that that the concentrated examiners opinion of difficulty standing walking is in direct conflict with that ultimate res do you sell insurance or is it something where he just goes over somebodies problems and woodward is an insurance agent do and mind you were saying that's what he could do what i think the basis for the light work when it comes to an insurance agent is that he may have to be out and about going to accident sites or something of that nature is that right i don't know i'm not exactly sure but now there's no trouble and when you say an insurance agent right they can be somebody's cell phone insurance or could be as you point out it could be somebody who's going in and evaluating the damage and don't be aware there's a car right well what would you know is that the dictionary of occupational titles which is what social security administration relies on to define these occupations considers it like work and then as it was described by mr huber at his hearing to the vocational expert vocational expert dean that to be light light work  any standing and walking requirements in his residual functional capacity which is sort of a sort of problematic in its own right and that the vocational expert would have needed to know how much standing walking mr huber could do in order to determine whether he could perform his that's relevant work so there isn't anything specific  record where he actually did as an insurance agent it would be in his testimony i don't know if the exactly what he testified as to as to his amount of standing and walking in an a in an eight hour day which is seems to me the saying focusing on that that's what he can do that's with the little jay said and i just think that's a very broad term rickl y you can do some things on the phone from the right call people you can do whatever or you got to be out and about some time to the time you don't need one of the they be late at night maybe something else right yeah honor that's the problem with relying on the social security's problem in relying on you know a publication that was last updated i feel even that in the eighty's and that's that's how they determine you know so we couldn't affirm on the theory that well maybe you could do a sudden terry version of insurance e g work well there was testimony i believe that said that there were no transfer of all skills from that white insurance agent job to a sedentary may please the court my name is eric shepard and i'm here to discuss with you why you should uphold the reasonableness of a l j pickett's decision the first major reason why is this the j explained himself millions of americans work with difficulties the other reason is the term slight at best this court has described the type of statement the type of doctor statement that plaintiff relies on has described the usefulness of that type of statement as slight at this court should not send this case back to the l j for a more specific discussion of that statement and keep many many more claimants waiting on line when the usefulness repeatedly in his decision when congress wrote the social security act congress demanded more than proof that a person has difficulties congress demanded that the person prove that they could not work here the important thing about the consultative examiners statement upon which the appellant relies is that it never says  and it's interesting to note that appellant never standing or walking right six hours a day right how do we go from the agency's consulting examiner same difficulty standing or walking to but you can still do it six hours a day we go through it from the opinions of the state agency doctors the state agency doctors looked at the opinion of the consulted of the examiner and came to the conclusion came to the same conclusion about the art of see that the a l j did but we ordinarily of examining doctors opinions more and the state agency doctors opinions and so when this state agency doctors looked at that record and they looked at the consultative exam or statement and they looked at his evidence as well as the evidence from the rest of the record they concluded that appellant was capable of doing life work and was capable of doing all the requirements of light work so i don't the two don't clash if there was a clash between those opinions that why is this a sufficient basis the the with this opinion it's important to remember that the consult examiner there's no requirement that the consultative examiner actually give a medical opinion of a person's limitations and so when you have the state agency doctors look at that data and look at that report and also sedentary work so it's not a matter of just sitting and talking on the phone or doing something it seems to me it has to be more than maybe you know what  treating it as light work right yes cheating treating it as light work and it's important to emphasize that the court in books specifically looked at this kind of statement provided by the consultative examiner and said the confirmed as the l j repeatedly said that the appellant had normal strength normal sensation and normal muscle development i believe on that exam the consultative exam are also discovered that the plaintiff walk normally and with no k and the state agency doctors looked at that data and they found that that was compatible with light work and the l j defer to the expertise of those doctors i should also add that we've that the elderly did not ignore this medical store statement the ael j repeatedly deal repeatedly addresses the difficulties that appellant claims and in fact relies on the state agency doctors in part because they specifically consider plaintiff's difficult one can trace the path of the ailed his reasoning that the l j consider those difficulties and found that though there were difficulties the difficulties did not preclude light work and i mentioned on the objective evidence that the three things that are important to remember is normal strength normal sensation normal muscle development on every single exact that's what his talent shows appellant talks a little bit about but it's important to remember again normal sensation on every exam a mere diagnosis the usefulness of a mere diagnosis is also slight at best as long as it doesn't show that there are companies symptoms or functional limitations related to that type six so we need to focus on functional limitations and yet when the you know is ill jay was discussing the word of that examination he did not mention the finding of a difficulty standing in walking to the l j mentioned that appellant had difficulties with sitting standing and walking numerous times throughout the decision be able to counter that in fact in the but that in discussing the medical examiner's report overlooked that finding correct i have two responses to that the first is i don't think that the l j over looked that finding i think one can discern so did he mention that that exact medical store source statement no thank you for the reasons again because millions of americans do work with difficulties and because sending this case back would would force others to wait on line so that's the second time you've made that point counsel is it your theory we ought to just go light on judicial review because there's a long line no not at all i e i'm glad to hear that yes i would just emphasize that  making the ael j address evidence that is that is not particularly useful does have costs and it does have costs to other people who are waiting in line type their claims so just make the point that a broad opinion from a medical and medical source is not doesn't necessarily excuse the l j from from considering that opinion and giving logical inac