ntil the through september fifth two thousand and ten when ms hermann was awarded benefits conditions and no five know that with the award is based on medical vocational guidelines where a person who's fifty five years old and cannot perform their past relevant work and who is limited to have most light exertion after doing a complete examination and evaluating some of the evidence that the administration sent to him dr holden opined among other things that in his herman had could only occasionally use her hands or was called thing ring five finger manipulation and han throws finger manipulation and the vocational expert testified that if that limitation was added to the functional cassady limitations that ms herman could not do any of the jobs that the l g found that she could do so therefore the able to step five decision would not be supported and in fact the vocational expert said with that limit the claimant would be limited to at best sedentary work and based on the both medical vocational guidelines that would give ms herman at least an upper upper extremity strain and there was normal sensation in the throughout the body the problem from players perspective is that dr holden made other findings including specific findings as to ms herman's grip strength and that her grip strength was significantly limited and as we point out in our brief that would be a basis the medical basis for finding limits in the ability to handle and use the finger particularly no basis for wanting to do a favor to to a claimant they don't owe anything to the claimant they're not trying to keep them as as a patient so why would bakr hold them give this opinion unless you truly believe that the claimant was so limited  in barnett versus barnhart case this court in quoting the ninth circuit case of small and stated quote if the l g thought he needed to know the basis of medical opinions in order to evaluate them he had a duty to conduct an appropriate understand why based on the doctor's findings he gave a certain opinion as to functional limitations and this court held that the l j should not have relied on his confusion or his lack of understanding to reject the doctor's and that's  the case but the a m t did neither based on his own lay understanding of the evidence he rejected dr holmes and the response the commissioner states that l j didn't know the significance of to script strength and clearly that the claim its grip strength in her left hand was about a third of that right hand so even without knowing what the normative values are it was clear that there was a significant and sit throughout an eight hour workday and his response was that he it was unlikely that ms herman would be able to work a full work day so he didn't answer the question because she couldn't do those things through out of date hour work day and that opinion is completely consistent with the opinion of the claimants long time treating physician dr dash our who on multiple occasions opined that his herman would be unable to sustain eight hours of work due to the five of my old job and a degenerative in the lumbar spine again the l j stated that dr holden's findings didn't support his conclusion but they all j had no basis for that finding in the record and he should have contacted dr holden if he wanted to know the reasons my name is eric true that i represent the commissioner of social security in this appeal dr phil often a consultation of examiner check boxes on a form that herman could occasionally reach handle and figure right below these boxes there was a space to indicate what clinical findings supported these conclusions and dr holton wrote see page one and you turn to page one analyzed the medical opinions of record he went through them in a chronological he went through the concentrate of examiners and crown court order and then he discussed the opinion of dr sands and he did say had relied on these you know entirely on supported allegations of problems with distance perception or or other things that were and dr kahn ski's opinion he simply was just summarizing the contents of dr dr or fulton instead of dr concept that's why i believe it's a scrivener's error because it's not as if he's he simply everything else about it is correct except for the name of the doctor and then if you look at dr sanders opinion he doesn't name the doctor by name he simply says the c e so i think in the process of preparing the decision that there was there was an error and listening to the t if there if he's acquitted he's you know he's definite about her problems with the gripping things now if there's some uncertainty question i mean as mr schultz pointed out this was the third consultation of examiner it was at this point seven years after the claim it at some point it's difficult to continue developing the record and continue asking questions about the basis for a particular checkbox particularly where the form itself provides a space for the doctor to indicate which clinical finding support those matters to difference western's what is the source of the figures that the vocational expert gave about the number of jobs available in her region and  state your honor i must confess i do not know so severely that answer to that question we've never litigated that issue up to this point i certainly can provide that information for you  jobs in the nation as well as in the applicants area and then they state that wasn't done the statute indicates that you can a significant number of jobs is either  know that it well we've discussed it the figures appear to be to be appear to be mythical i mean there have been other cases in which that that issue was was raised that issue is not raised here but again if you would case the question is given given the whole time the slack of five and given his you know expertise and the fact that he is quite definite about her grip problem can the administrative law judges discard in his testimony be justified on the basis of what the what the administrat so you have doctor no actually it begins even earlier with the first exam there on page three three four that's dr baucus and then he turns to at the bottom of page three thirty five  sands opinion and that last sentence in the second paragraph he commented that the opinion of counsel to the examiner dr holden was not given weight because the deficit stuck to what the noted upon examination were not consistent with fiber documented by any other physician treating its and i have no idea what you're saying but let me ask you what is his what is his criticism of full moon now clearly he borrowed what he thought was sans criticism that we know is wrong so what else is there the criticism of horton is in that top paragraph of page twelve three through six the first reason is that and this is something that  was agreed to in the district court is that there was an inconsistency between a clinical finding of normal fine finger manipulation and the opinion indicating that she could only occasionally finger there was also inconsistency between normal strength and the extremities and a limitation to occasional reaching they all j well where i don't understand where in the top her graph is there the inconsistency if you look at the last sentence page three thirty six this opinion is given little weight except as to the lifting limitations because dr horton's examination findings of five five muscle strength normal  manipulative abilities are not consistent with limitations regarding reaching handling and finger the finding of normal fine and finger manipulation was inconsistent with the limitations to occasional fingering and they haven't made any argument about l g s finding out about reaching it's just concerning the grip strength comes in because they all j doesn't mention that finding at all which finding of but reduced grip strength and real interest in both hands and that strength actually goes more to the ability to handle than overall   don't support the doctor's opinion but dr hall made significant other finding such as the claimant had a halting movements when she got up off of a chair and getting on and off the exam table she would not even do what called the walking maneuvers of swatting  on your toes or your heat her heels the question believe that she could do them and previous records show she had significant problems doing those things you know there's evidence of very significant degenerative disc disease in the lumbar say grohl spine  so just because certain findings were normal that doesn't allow the l j to overturn the finding of a doctor examining doctor that said i don't believe she could work an eight hour day thank you thank you very much