my name is timothy burns for the appellant elizabeth taylor this case poses several questions kennedale j basses are of the findings and only portions of a doctor's report must enable j consider all non medical opinion and assured us that a nineteen year old who needed reminders to use soap in the shower was capable of independent work finding that she would have diminished the she had markedly diminished concentration in working memory he did he didn't mention those things but he did consider parts of dr barrows opinion or a report when he said or made his decision beryl noted that she had sustained focus and concentration appear markedly diminished and as she had quite a markedly diminish working memory in campbell this court ruled that enable j cannot pull certainty tales of a report and a new word the other parts of their work in that's exactly what they all jaded here he took the full scale i q score of seventy five and his and determined that that meant the person was capable of s in this case simple repetitive doesn't a count at all from markedly depend as diminish working memory we know from the from the further evidence i'll get to in a minute that she had problems with things like simple instructions according to a couple different reports now in this berro statements represent a finding or an opinion for four fifteen twenty seven eighty two tells us when it defines medical source that means that those are statements which reflect judgments about the nature and severity including symptoms and diagnosis regarding limitations of what you can still do barrow's findings are very was opinion here about the is about the nature and severity of what he determined from his  in the second case and this is where we we delve into more of the credibility type issues but this decision which are our manifest the judge of that l j ignored the case conference and  note the findings of many of the findings of this calculus or teacher who completed the report in these reports from the teachers from the folks at school we find that she's not independent at all and getting around day to day mentioned a few lines from this kalish report including the line that she's quote pretty independent which the rest of kelly's report seems to belie she didn't mention at all the case conference where they were formed an individual educational plan and i u p d and i we find out that she needs walk to class that she's her goal is to look for a part time job at a full time job she's not on the academic graduation track and that they then set future goals for her that she would pick out her own clothes she would learn how to use money at a store and learn how to keep track of time so that she can complete her tasks none of these findings appear in the l g s decisions he didn't discuss any of them and yet he assures us again that she's independent and her ability to do the things this court noted in hughes and judge posner discussed earlier today that a b s tuesday moving cooking cleaning  not the same as work and yet here we find that the fact that she can make macaroni and cheese do some vacuuming around the house with her mother's help we find that these are the things that the l j credits with her supposedly being able to work it seemed to chats with the with the librarian and yet with this support system who helps or who cares for the l j sort of in the sense punishes or for having that by said well look she gets stuff done not noting that she doesn't get stuff done fact that she answered questions but she didn't answer those questions correctly she indicated she graduated from high school when she didn't she indicated she didn't know how tall she was or how much she weighed but you are she's pretty cooperative and comply is it you're well from being about here and i would say yes she is she's a remarkably nice young woman i think that comes through on that and the testimony that she was trying to be as as helpful as possible when she was answering these questions  she admitted to not knowing how to text not knowing how to mail a letter not knowing how to under her not understanding money and needing help from her mom to shampoo or hair to cook macaroni and cheese and to perform simple household tasks so every adult and file in this case notes that she has problems completing things independently missed moraz the librarian she guessed she wouldn't even give her more than the hour a week in the case conference said she should have a go and part time morning your honor my name is katherine segal i represent the commissioner of social security in this case the l j i considered a variety of different reports and evidence in  an assessment of her physical capacity and she didn't have any exertional restrictions based on an impairment now we're not talking about her body habitus as a as a five foot four you know hundred thirty pound woman whether she can do medium work it's whether her impairments cause a she can only feed particular types of stuff and threw it into little machines well the vocational expert did talk about the machine future job as being something that accommodated the restrictions that the  one hour a week you are you are thinking of her as being able to work forty hours a week or two yes now is being a machine feeder is that  less or more strenuous them doing whatever she does and wants whatever she does in the library strenuous in terms of physical capacity is that what you're asking yeah week and forty hours certainly your honor and that's that's why one of the forty fold difference right when the l g considered that she could work in a library forty hours a week that's not what the vocational expert testified about the vocational expert testified i'm asking you know do you think she can work forty hours a week in a library doesn't matter what i think i'm asking you matters to me so you tell me what you think possibly yes i think she  not ask whether she library job could be performed at forty hours that the testimony given that is her only work why would you expect a vocational expert to say well of course she can why can't she were with no experience in factory work why can't she work forty hours a week and a lot of her there's no indication that she didn't work forty hours we can live or because she was unable to she was working one hour a week in a library because it was a volunteer position that she got through like her high school vocational rehabilitation program so it wasn't even a real job could i ask you a couple questions about fielder's opinion yes i'm i'm volume operation but it troubles me i'm also troubled by the references to her as a high school graduate she testified she's a high school graduate a real comment on that and them on the last page of the opinion about the vocational expert opinion taking into account that the claimant is a high school graduate that may have lower levels of reading and math that seems like an extraordinary exaggeration of her ability and understatement of her parents your honor the teacher evaluation and talked about her having being the in the twelfth grade she finished high school but that she was she had joined reading and math at the fourth and fifth grade level screens doing instructional level at fourth fifth and seventh grade levels and the a l j included that fourth and fifth grade level in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert and to make sure that the vocational expert understood the extent of her limits he did not say that she was at a high school level in academic instruction it was completed twelve years of education had fourth and fifth grade levels that were considered for math and reasonings and always the relevance of rubina high school during the the ability to said when she was in high school when she was seventeen later and it during the testimony when she was nineteen a little bit older but l g asked her about that and asked her whether she was able to do that on her own or whether she needed a a list to remember all the different grooming things that she needed to do and she said that sometimes she needed help and sometimes she did on her own from memory and she testified about that  of me that's not good enough if you were going to factory you can say well sometimes sometimes i can stuff up to the machine and sometimes i can it's a one step job it's the lowest level of reasoning it's number it's it's lowest level of reasoning math and language abilities it's much less than than doing things that are far more complex like just have you ever seen a machine for your i have never personally seen a machine here but the vocational expert has she had thirty five years of experience and she took into account all of the restrictions that were reasonably supported by the record and she identified four thousand jobs that is a machine and that was her testimony that she had thirty five you know anything about the house because it just proves operated how they how they make their recommendations and what actions they have to yes your honor i actually do because i attended a conference and i told her i had occasional experts that talked about what they rely on and they actually do work as rehabilitation counselors in the field and they place people in actual job you know the question  expert identified jobs that were in the state of indiana four thousand jobs as a vocational expert she places people as if she derived the number for she sees the factory has the number knows the number of jobs in it in the factories in this particular says she did not testify about that because the cleaners never any didn't ask her about it but in other cases i have seen that the vocational experts are challenged on the jobs they'll say i know this factory has this many jobs here the l g was allowed to except the bottom line number of  her four thousand jobs that she identified because the planet's attorney had an opportunity to challenge it he did he asked how she arrived at the number she said i use my thirty five years of experience in the field and that was accepted and they moved on that is allowed that is something that under the donahue case recognized this this court recognized that and jay is allowed to accept a bottom line number from a location expert when when there's testing when we have a question mark briefly your honor the question about that the testimony it goes back to the hard cases that i did that i referenced earlier the testimony about simple repetitive task even if it's limited to fifth grade fourth grade something i didn't ask about because mrs ross said she wouldn't give her any more time i would not ask about that at the hearing why would i could she work forty hours a week the person who who was a supervisor said she couldn't work more than one hour a week so i didn't bring that up and i think it's an instant miss miss marlice an important factor here we are talking about the simplest work we're talking about affixing labels and this this lady needed instructions from her mom written instructions from her mom to remember how to do that every week and her pursue programs are said i wouldn't even give her any more time or any more responsibilities and i think as i thought when i was doing this case at the hearing that is the most telling issue of all we tried