work before finding that she could return to that work but i think it's important to emphasize the testimony of the vocational expert he testified about past work that he would not put it down at the sedentary level in the explicitly adopted the ves findings the same findings which contradicted the entry for the dictionary about this is on the issue of walking being able to walk or how much walking is going to  j and the book ational expert was interesting there where the vocational expert seemed at the very end of that colloquy to stand corrected that there would be any substantial amount of walking at the california col academy that vocational expert was using his own personal experience on the university of washington campus which is a very large campus as we know and the day reminded the vocational expert of that  and i think you really need to have some sort of explicit retraction of that opinion and i think what we're left with then is the fact that the fully credited the opinion that the that the v at step four of her the password is actually performed i don't believe that the defendant even even disputes that that she qualifies under that she'd be able to return to past work is actually performed the only issue she return to past work as generally performed and on that they rely on the g o t in my point as well the d o t put it down the sedentary but the vocational expert the elegy is fully credited said no that's not sedentary these jobs often require a lot of walking because they have a lot of meetings they have to go and fetch files this is a lot of time spent on the feet heat he's he seemed to be fairly fairly confident about where  going to meetings fetching files and the the added requirement of actually walking the floors for entire chefs just as some sort of a security or it is an attempt to get more familiar with the student by who apparently would spend a lot of good morning my name is john custer and i represent the police joanne von hard commissioner of social security i'd like to address the point that it was a counsel raised and that is whether or not there was any conflict between the vocational experts testimony and the dictionary of occupational titles i don't see a conflict the and the l trace certainly did not see a conflict he believed that the folk ational experts testimony supported the quality that he made which was that the claimant could perform her sedentary highly skilled past relevant work as i believe i noted in our grief the vocational expert does testify that these jobs require more than a little bit of walking around but the time frame that he used was more than forty five minutes to an hour however as the the commissioner's regulations also indicate the ability point sedentary work means the ability to walk forward as long as two hours in the course of an eight hour workday that is stand of work as long as two hours and that definition is also contained in our brief and so why do i believe the l j believe there was any conflict between that testimony and i do not  in most of our cases in all of our cases of course with this court is compelled to do is affirm the commissioner's decision if it's both legally correct and supported by substantial evidence here the court found that the claimant hadn't met her burden of proof to show that she was disabled that is that she was unable to perform her past relevant work  stable at step three of the disability sequential evaluation and also found that the climate had not met her burden of showing that she could not perform past work that step for the  that that the district court's quiting was correct and i think further counsel thank you very much the case just argued will be submitted for decision