thank you that was well raised four issues in his opening brief this morning i'd like to focus on one of those issues namely the administrative law judges finding at step five of the stated that the requirements of social security ruling zero zero four p mandate that in a l j may not rely on the testimony of a vocational expert regarding the requirements of a particular job without the conflict is that first with respect to the beauty supply occupation the vocational expert testified that vallance whale is past relevant work as a cosmetolog documentation whatsoever in the record that he handled money the only form that he completed describing his work simply said that he cut styled and colored hair there's actually no reference whatsoever to mak sales for handling money likewise the dictionary of occupational titles gives a very lengthy description of what's involved as a cosmetologist there's absolutely no reference whatsoever to case number one he didn't point during the easy and number two we do indeed have a conflict well what are and i'm having some trouble because it would appear that least on the surface that there was no real conflict i mean there might have been some terminology differentiation here but what's the guts of the conflict here what what's what your principal concern in so far as how he did his pastoral work the vocational expert that i believe that this gentleman could go out and do a different job he could go out into outside beauty supply sales and the reason why he could do this is because in this former job as a cosmetologist he and he handled money and he stole products to his customers the record doesn't support that what so what this complete absence of that that's why i think the conflicts very clear and again i want to underscore the point your honor that even if  first suggested nor could he do anything else now the disability in this particular case is the carpal tunnel syndrome primarily perhaps also have a tight a c that's which is which is  there were two hearings in the first hearing he said i think i did it in eighty six or eighty seven in the second hearing he said i think i did it in eighty five or eighty six male said well you told me eighty seven the first time around i'm just writing down eighty seven there's no evidence  well did this work any time before december of one nine hundred eighty six it's not hast relevant work if it's not passed relevant work the ve never could have said that he could do outside beauty sales or light delivery so it changes the what constitutes a claimant's past relevant work with or without the presence of counsel and the l j had many options to him he could have taken a simple five minute recess literally pushed the button and gotten an earnings record gone back on the record and said mr  fifteen year issue is critical i'd like you to provide to meet your w two forms or tax returns because depending on what that shows us that may impact the outcome of your case and he didn't do that so to answer your question it's the you disagree with the opposing counsel statement that this would have been easy to determine easy to determine by from factual records within the immediate the l j determined that balance way alone was who was credible and as to his subjective pain but not its severity is that correct yes or no and his major reason low form of medication and less severe form of medication is that correct that was one of three reasons and you know let's explore that just for second you can tell me what the others were is not correct the valance way to explain that he could not take a more sustained severe form of medication because of us have the tightest if i could have left isn't it correct that balance layla testified he could not take a stronger form of medication because of his have to tit the man told me he could do all of these things and i don't see how he could do them without pain when the actual testimony was that the man tried to do them in couldn't without severe pain or you're out could those two things not be inconsistent really not inconsistent because they went on to explain that while mr mellon's well it was making these various statements about his pain he was in fact taking care of his child and there was not a mother in the picture so no however this court in versus apple did notice that the absence of muscular atrophy is a proper consideration when considering a claim and that would be great if there was anything in the record but there's not a correct i believe that there's you right years and if you determine that that the l g s job at this point was not sufficient it would be a fine reason to reverse it you say reverse  and what do you expect would happen it would be further hearing further development of the record anything further counsel your honor thank you mr a second you have some reserve time three points first with respect to what the remedy might be to the extent that i did argue that don't i don't want to appear like i'm a performer flip flopped i'm really clarifying my position ok my point was that for most fundamentally the case clearly requires a rema in council tends to agree with you and what would you expect on remained given the focus on this particular area where there may not have been full development of the record ok several things at this point regardless of whether it's eighty five or eighty six we're clearly beyond fifty nine years but let's assume that i can prove at thirty hearing that it was not done within fifteen years of one nine hundred eighty seven he has no past relevant work therefore the commission is burden of proof is that much greater amount of locational expert but i would submit that a vocational expert would not be able to find alternate occupations given his limitations only using his hands on an occasional basis if in fact we also talk about except in so the subjective complaints of the judge hawkins asked about the second hypothetical the ve said yes if i assume the truth of what he testified to this morning there's nothing this man can do that's why he'd have to be found disabled all right thank you counsel thank your honour's the case just argued will be submitted for decision