appeals started out with two so scared hearings and then we took a break so just to kind of set how i view these cases when somebody is wrongly denied disability benefits and they're truly unable to work they are left with no means of survival and they are essentially banished from civil society and that is a very harsh thing and i take my duty very seriously when it comes to these individuals and one of the things that always troubles me is that when you go in front of an anal jay they all day is not only the representative for the government they're also essentially the judge jury and executioner of that government decision and yet we are presented with what is supposed to be a non adversarial proceeding i am charges being an advocate for my clients and when i step scored room as an attorney they view me differently then as if my client went in there and represented issue when it comes to the non adversarial proceeding is very specific rules are imposed upon a l j ask you how they must handle the case the issues in this case boil down to the  g s responsibilities to fully and fairly develop the record regardless of the presumption that i as an attorney i'm going to present the best case for that person there is a baseline requirement that they l j fully and fairly develop the record in this case that essentially went to how the records were considered there was a large evidentiary gap that was that i had just so happened to be the evidence of treating provided it provided a medical source statement that has also with it requirements as to how that medical source table is going to be evaluated in my brief isolated twenty c f r for sixteen point nine two seven  two which states with a medical source they've been is not given controlling weight there is requirements as to how that medical opinion will be waived this is were we under the old regs for treating physicians record you seem to want us in your brief to reconsider our case law about the extent of it duty to develop the record when the claimant has counsel that's a legal issue you've addressed that in some detail  but there's also a factual question about how significant that was here and in your brief you've identified what i thought were supposed to be the silver bullets the the great evidence at page fifteen and i look at it and i don't see that what i see is evidence of temporary limitations because of injury an acute injury but i don't see anything that would suggest long term  fall and i'm i mean i can imagine verily the pain involved in that but that's a temporary kind of a problem not not the stuff of long term  listing within the records beyond just the issues that were incurred because of the fall so the issue goes to are these records essential are these records referring to an evidentiary gap in the end file and they are they refer to dr weber's treatment which followed up on dr monto toes treatment and dr lagunas treatment at the same clinic prior to him meeting with mr collins and writing the letter mr dr ever did have a follow up treatment as well after the letter was written these records were obviously out there at the time of the hearing the claimant had filled out a written form talking about the records that were his treatment records and he had listed these providers as a provider at weber's records he saw him only once before he issued this opinion so he did not have any history with this claimant and he didn't follow him either he saw him only once more after this appearing that you  place so much weight on was was issued and so this is not like a long time treating physician list records need to be taken into consideration and examined more thoroughly this is so essentially a one off for a doctor weapon and the caliber of the the records and sounds can't really bear the weight that you want them to bear and if they did then it was the obligation of your predecessor t issue with the records from the community health center was that he the mr collins was seen prior by dr karp weber's associates dr laguna and dr mann toto and so those records would have been reviewed at the time of him evaluating the claimant and making his determinations of residual force or crassly that would make him unable to do any work in regards to the responsibility of the l j to request those records nonetheless that goes to my discussion about the importance of an l j fully and fairly developing the record regardless of a presumption that a claimant is presenting their best case and going back to the first question about me trying to undo the current case law i think every plays out clearly that i'm not trying to do the case law i am merely trying to point out that there is not actually this daylight between faith circuits interpretation of think i think the eight circuits interpretations and the discussion that they have in the sneak case is very helpful to understanding the importance of that full requirement to fully and fairly develop the record and so i think that's valuable testimony that may conflict with the dictionary by titles this is the other core issue in this case and a l g have a duty to ask the questions to clarify if there is a government was about eight pages it did not address the issue of whether there was a failure to address that in the hearing on the part of the prior counsel for mr collins by not questioning the that was not addressed i think mr crow level and also there was not an issue about how obvious the conflicts have to be before an e l t has a duty to address the issues that issue is not raised mr korb either thank you did satisfy that burden as your honour's point out the actual records in this case the medical records do not represent a significant omission here and there is no prejudice for mr collins his case that's two issues firstly addressing the first issue they all she was reasonable when you look in context as to why these records weren't requested here he had before him two recent medical treatment forms the first one from two thousand and thirteen in which he had the opinion name was brought up at the hearing however as your honor pointed out he had only seen dr weber a total of two times and so here it was it was reasonable that the algae did not seek out these records and again it is a shared burden and as her owners correctly pointed out mr collins and his attorney did not provide these records and if they found them to be essential they should have and they don't argue why they didn't provide the records or give any type of reason as to why they did not and ask her whether the records create any prejudice in this case they do not the records were cumulative they showed such things as normal appearance the spine and the philippi to stand on heels and there was normal normal neurological findings negative street and raise tests even at dr weber's own exam essentially he found shoulder pain and back pain he found abnormal feet without swelling without joint swelling or pendle tenderness and also a normal neurological examination so the prejudice that's required simply does not exist here turning to  in this case they all j did satisfy social security growing zero zero dash for p by affirmatively asking if the vocational experts testimony conflicted with the dictionary occupational titles after conscious counsel did not question the vocational expert on her vote on her foundation or her reasoning for her testimony so and furthermore when d o t numbers were offered to as counsel he explicitly declined them so under britain first has asked through this court has said that it's that a vocational expert has satisfied their burden to produce their underlying foundation or reasoning if they have information available on demand and in that piece the opposing counsel claimants counsel did not specifically he declined important argument here there is no actual conflicts between vocational experts testimony and a sedentary assembler position of which the vocational expert testimony testified that there are fifty thousand of those positions in the national economy and i gave a sampling and in my brief but there are many centurions somewhere positions available and furthermore the conflict did not become apparent in this case as i stated before mr collins counsel did not question the ves foundation or reasoning bayle j was reasonable and relying on the vocational expert in this case who testified that she had thirty years of experience placing people with disabilities in jobs she had a ph d in rehabilitation psychology so she was an expert in this case and it was reasonable that everybody involved relied on her