that they are not currently working that they have medical that meant that affect their ability to work there and able to return to the past work once that burden is met the burden shifts to the commissioner to show that that person can make an adjustment to other work that exists in the national economy for claimants who are of advanced age which is defined as fifty five or over there is what amounts to a rebuttable presumption of this ability if the claimants met those st four steps they are disabled unless they can make an your age i'm not sure exactly you know she was fifty five at all material times of the case so she's been over fifty four she's fifty five at that she was fifty one when she filed her application yes i thought she was younger than fifty five application but i've been about two hundred and six well and look let me ask you this at some point she became she turned fifty five before the decision became final in front of the yes she turned fifty five in two thousand  well ok so tell me explain to me your what was the significance of being of turning fifty five well under the medical professional rules if you're fifty five years or are over are limited to light work you can't do your past work then the then the commissioner which is to say the l j has to show that you have skills you've acquired from your past work you can transfer to a significant range of other work witness it's a readily transferable right r readily transferable to a significant range of other work and so that let me is there anything is there any meaning to the term readily what does that mean i think that i think there is some meaning there it's not what really this case  about ok but i think i think that goes to the l g is burden to show what the skills are so that the claimant or reviewing court can readily understand how those skills would be transferable to a significant our help i should say that a single occupation be garbus of the number of jobs in that occupation does not constitute a range of work and building on that we're curious about the meaning of the word significant here because  will concede that two jobs or two occupations is a range but the presence of the word significant directly implies that there is such a thing as an insignificant range of work and if two is the minimum threshold for a range and if there's any such focused more on the word range but also dealt with the fact that significant is in the in the statute modifies a concept of a brain what you want to hold the two occupations is not a significant right exactly well that's one of the two issues that were here with th have to draw a line somewhere i just i have i don't think we have to draw a line today to say that two is below the line similarly in gutierrez which was about the number of jobs not the number of occupations the court concluded that twenty five thousand although a close call was a significant number of jobs they did not draw a line and say this many is significant and above that is fine and below that is not find the court declined to draw that line because it's a fact by fact it's a case by case determination not case by case if we jaw line if we join our line it too then all of the ones that are two are out if we draw the line at three so it's not that once we draw the line it's not case by case anymore right that's  that's fair i do note that the at least at three occupations there would be more than just the minimum range i can say candidly i wouldn't brought the case  i do know that went for a claimant who's over age fifty five the range of unskilled work which is one thousand six hundred occupations is considered not sufficient to meet the commissioner's burden so six hundred different are different occupations is not significant i don't know that two vs one makes that much of a difference you said that there were two you said this was one of two issues that you were right the other issue is that in order to show that this person who's  is not disabled because the a l j has to identify some skills that they quite from the past work and they have to identify a range of work that they can take those skills and go do and here the skills were defined as merchandising sales that's the sum total of the definition i our position is that that is not sufficient under the statute the you rely upon to support your argument that that next specificity well ability doesn't rise to the level of a skill until it's linked to particular job tasks and that's based on the social security ruling eighty two dollars dash forty one dollars said that a skill is practical and familiar knowledge of the principles and processes of an art science or trade combined with the ability to apply them in practice in a proper and approved matter so it's ability on the one hand and work tasks on the other in those two things linked i just don't think merchandising sales brings that together i would brain injury and so that affected her ability to focus and to them deal with customers there was some also some physical issues she was ultimately found limited to li work there were some foot issues she was determined that she would not be able to drive so that ruled out a lot of those sales jobs couldn't do things in the field and things he must about i mean are she big he she claimed disability beginning in the summer of two time she wouldn't be eligible for benefits i think that's that's entirely in your argument you're married there do appear to be like jobs that she could perform during that limited period so there is a really if you're asking for well the relief or asking for is either remand for the l g to make particular findings as to what skills she has and how they would transfer or in the alternative should the court agree that two occupations is not a significant range it would be a remand for please the court counsel lars nelson on behalf of the commissioner of social security this court should affirm the decision of the algae in this matter because it is supported by substantial evidence that finding would be consistent with the national economy in light of her transferable skills at page seventy three of the supplemental expert excerpt of records the vocational asked expert and l j asked the vocational expert were there job that she could specifically do with with the specific transferable skills and that seventy four vocational expert said that the skill of merchandising sales was directly transferable two issues your honor there's the just the general finding of are there a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claim can do in light of her transferable skills that's regardless of whether she's fifty over fifty five  was very narrowly tailored to just dealing with the question of was one occupation as identified by a vocational expert in response into raga tories a significant number under a grid rule two  to the courts st here is a decision where the court declined to extend any bright line rules to a significant number of jobs and i would also point this court to the supreme court's decision in peace stack where the court rejected request for a categorical rule as applied to vocational testimony that in that case here this court does not need to create a bright line rule as assess the nd court course decision and go two years a separate decision in the more recent of the two this court explained that the dictionary of occupational titles each title represents numerous occupations that issue is not considered in lounsbury and here the positions of burial needs and commercial equipment sales person in to speak people who are performing different occupations some might just be selling coffins some might just be selling chairs and desks for office where somebody else is doing different things the number of occupations into spaded is different from just the number of job numbers and the commission would say that this court has to look at the totality of the claimants past relevant work the specific occupations identified there whether the dictionary of occupational titles is instructive on that point and then also the job numbers in writing the thing thing have been argued  theory that even though there was only one range there were a number of different with ific jobs that could be included within that range well why isn't that argument not persuasive because it was the same circumstance in lounsbury well lonsberry is does not tell us whether the court was considering the dictionary of occupation and titles and i think lounsbury did an excellent job of not taking this course case law and binding future courts too far in lounsbury there was only one occupation and they were able to deal with the very simple issue of one occupation is not arrange i like i know now we've got a though of the vocational that i mean that would be within the realm of possible holdings the commissioner would argue that that this court's precedent has rejected bright line rules and that's consistent with the supreme court's decision and well now i know you're over the we don't have to make a bright line rule it takes three or forty five or six were in a case where there are two i guess we have to draw some lines on either say we're not going to draw any line or say to use a minimum  why do you say we can't do that well i think that this court would that reduces the analysis of a significant range strictly to a matter of arithmetic and so we've got a significant range the words have to be given some  be that these significant ranges case specific and to the court's question about its lounsbury that argument could have been made in lounsbury that you know that the job identified there  encompasses multiple occupations but that's just simply not in the decision for this court to be guided by in that case whether that and the commission would also go into this court's decision in barns where the ultimate decision of finding here v l j was that there were two jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that's in light of the claims entire residual functional capacity assessment however we're talking about a grid rule which exertional range so residual functional capacity increases the universe of jobs in barns this court held that we cannot use the grids to constrain the subsequent analysis in barns the grid rules directed a fine of not disabled based on the claimant having unskilled work available the l g there however relied on semi skilled jobs and this court said we don't take the grids to inform that subsequent step so if there was a question how many jobs she could form perform for application of those grid rules that we are not looking at the whole residual functional capacity we're just looking at her exertional range and if there is truly a question about that in this case then it could be remanded to the commissioner for further development of the record on that point because again tasks performed in the past relevant work and we can look to the vocational expert to translate those into an r articulable transferable skill and would have the what did they did the vocational expert say here on that very point well the vocation oxford spoken great deal detail merchandising sales and to that we need to only look to page three hundred and ten in the supplemental excerpt of record where the claimant describes her automotive sales skills as handling customer service in a stressful sales environment engaging in sales negotiation product demonstration finalizing sales and delivery lead follow up by emails and calls and checking inventory now she's fifty five yes and i think so what does that mean when it is readily transferable well in this case i mean you know if you get over things get a little in order road in this case we don't need to wrestle with that question because one because the a l j asked on seventy three are there skills that are specifically transferable and then the vocational expert on the bottom of seventy four side the skill of merchandising sales is directly transfer so there's no on this record there's no question that the skills are readily transferable even though the l j or in the vocational expert did not use is there are differences between directly and readily  i would say readily directly is more narrowly tailored than readily and then less the court has any other questions i would ask this court to affirm and i would remind the court that the claimant was working using her sales skills for angie throughout the relevant period so this is not an abstraction in this case we know she is continuing to use for transfer of all skills  st of all you want us to address counsel's last point there are unskilled sales jobs in the world and because of that we know that sales in and of itself is not a skill by definition anything you can do as part of an unskilled job is not a skill because skills are only acquired from skilled or semi skilled work and that really goes to the heart of the problem here merchandising sales what does that mean there was argument in the pleadings over whether we could look at the dictionary definition but if we can't look at the dictionary definition what else do we have th of jobs in with lounsbury the number of jobs is not the issue it was the number of occupations and here again there are two occupations the number of jobs is not relevant if it has any relevance i would note that one of those two jobs has only thousand five hundred positions in the national economy so the result is going to turn on our interpretation allows marion weathered bumps up from one occupation to two as a minimum for that issue yes ok thank you thank you council the matters submitted