court my name is sean good and i represent the playing of sammy rainey history work this whole life and was never homeless until he had the second stroke eleven years leading up to the hearing he drove the fifty to a street bus for the chicago transit report that says he can walk fifty feet on the system walking fifty feet on assisted is not an r f c and does not translate to light work the first area that's most glaring l j mate was not properly applying the trea i think it was at the hospital of that and in two thousand and eleven yes and then again a couple days after that and then he became homeless and i think he saw one more time again carrying those in the two thousand workers something he said that he went back to the c t a and actually to drive a bus oh yeah but he worked there for you know eleven years so he thought you know they'd give him another job and they said there's no work for have you know i don't remember anything specific other than that in the testimony but he described why you couldn't do other jobs and it's due to the weakness of his hands he's a high school educated individual his past work was mystified by the occasional expert but he was a there's weakness in his right hand but does not give anyone limitations when prompted by the counsel here counsels well where this case fits in with respect to the so called grids yeah the reason that he didn't grid disability because the ve improperly classified his job of the switchboard operator as a receptionist so there's thirteen thousand jobs in the d o t and there's thirteen receptionists jobs two of them are light eleven of them are sedentary and the ve testifies he refers to it as a sedentary job that like job and then a sedentary the walk and it appeared based on two savage the medical experts testimony that he seemed pretty surprised by these findings considering when he walked in the room went to savage first questioned mr rayney he says i noticed that you're quite dependent on the came when you walked in and i noticed that you it appears to be necessary almost and then the judge cuts him off and that's one of a times the judge doesn't let the doctor testify which doctor was the medical expert you savage he cut he didn't have seventeen eighteen or nineteen at which one of them the prescription for a cane and i understand that there there is a note about discharge that a box is checked that says he's walking independently but everywhere he goes he has this ca cites the receptionist job gives three different d o t codes two for merchandising representative and a one for merchandising representative one for no two for a  survey well it's not the code that is wrong it's the fact that at one time he says it's white and the other two he says it's sedentary and the way mr rayney described his job was a light job he didn't do installation work he would walk around the hospital install phones and he the judge confused him when he said he was he asked this question twice in two ways the first time he said did you install anything and he said yes i walked around the hospital installed phones the second time said you don't need technical insulation he said no and i think you know the claimant was prefer the court luke on behalf of the commissioner of social security this case involves two issues the first being whether mr rayney needed a cane and then the second being the location experts testimony about mr rayney past work i want to begin actually with your honor's question about the grid rules first because it indicated that you wanted government counsel to cover that aspect but as we said in our brief that's actually not a political in this case because this is a step for case this case did not proceed to all five steps of the sequential evaluation process because the a ok with the help of the vocational expert testimony found that mr rainy could go back to one of his past relevant jobs and it's for that reason that this case didn't get to medical vocational gritz because this case then does not involve other jobs in the regional or national khana me that mr the job description for the switchboard operator job that mr rayney had at a hospital he had that job up until one thousand nine hundred nine or two thousand and there's actually a little bit of confusion as to when he last held that job but that receptionist job i how the vocational expert classified it and as mr premies counsel would have the court believe it's that costly cation that somehow then creates a reversible error and makes this case we need to go back for further consideration but the vocational expert took an r f c from the l j and that r c included additional postural limitations a limitation of not locking on an even services because actually gave this training some credit regard to balance issues and it was an r c for light work with additional limitations the vocational expert took out our a c and compared it to the types of jobs that mr rayney had held which included bus driving and he was unable to go back to work for the c t a which is job he'd held for about eleven years but he also had this job at the hospital the vocational expert called it a receptionist job the vocational expert gave a d o t number and it's through that testimony that the ail j then in his decision found that there's at least something from mr romney's past that he could return to there's nothing as your honor judge sykes had mentioned to indicate that a job that mr rayney in the past had learned in thirty days or last which involved a console a keyboard a large eight hundred system even if for some reason all those systems are no longer in place and he would have to learn something new there's no indication based on this medical record that mr rayney somehow couldn't still learn in under thirty days the new job the new system and a job a telephone operator and can i ask you whether who's going to hire a homeless man in his sixty's to operate the sophisticated piece of communications equipment what i want to ask you is how you how one builds a logical bridge between the medical examiner's finding that he was able to walk more than fifty feet without a cane two and a residual functional capacity that he's able to stand and walk for sixty to zero six hours over an eight hour day hopping squatting getting on and off the exam table no problems he'll tell walking and it's actually a doctor and a sign that he could walk more than fifty feet with no assisted sites no need for a cane and that is an examination after which dr rana also made really a medical opinion finding which is no difficulty sitting standing walking with those kinds of exertional limitations and functionalities dr rand i found no nine two years later a stroke incident two thousand and eleven after which there was no records of any long lasting neurological deficits when mr rayney went to visit dr rosenstein who was the attending at the emergency room visit him in the month that he had this come for two thousand and stroke and then again in january two thousand levon at those two times he didn't report any instability he actually didn't dr rozen scientist know any difficulty walking at that time around the end of two thousand eleven to two thousand and twelve dr rosen stein's notes were all about this blurred vision and vision impairment and that's the reason why in february two thousand and twelve mr rayney went to see an ophthalmologist that's important because there was one opinion record up through the and of two thousand and twelve even including when he established care with the primary care physician sophia chen dr chen managed his medications hypertension high blood pressure stuck her chin also noted that mr rayney had normal gait she noted that he came to those two different that he had with her in october and november of two thousand and twelve with a cane but again that wasn't she never said he needs to continue to use the cane or she didn't know what in those that he had walking problems so your honor that simple evidence standard we hardly ever have a case where all of the evidence is unfavorable or all of it is favorable at this point when we are before you we almost always have a record that's mix and it's in weighing all of that evidence that that was the role of the ok those you would you agree that to mr rayney you know a good long term record of steady work  o j knew about the work history because the l j talked about his years at the hospital and at the c t a use or any indication that he took that into account in a value way to his credibility about the need for the cane and his ability to return to work somewhere b o j didn't in one phrasing link work history to cane use the cane use was really about his balance issues because as mr cheney's representative said both at the administrative hearing and here today this case is not about pain it's really about steadiness and balance the able j dilla to stand and walk for six hours at the right correct in your honor the job that the l g found he could go back to wouldn't involve standing for up to six hours a day even though the r c your honour's correct included up to six hours of walking and standing in up to six hours of sitting mr rayney had every opportunity to describe what he did when he worked at the hospital switchboard what have it because tight but really it was not an error the vocational spirit said as performed by mr rayney the job he did at the hospital was sedentary he didn't do a great deal of walking as described in the d o t that job was light so the regs really have that step for the ability to say have have the decision making find that someone can go back to his her past job either as they actually performed it or as it's performed in the national economy when you're reaching back how many years fifteen your honor well in this case we'd be saying more than fifty years that  we have no indication that the job taking in taking calls for hospitals is necessarily obsolete so respectfully your honor i were not prepared to concede that the job itself is obsolete but we understand your point which is today i through the administrative process and had a hearing in two thousand and fourteen this is not actually we have cases often where claimant cases do bounce back and forth for any many years if not decades in the administrative process of the courts  we don't necessarily have that here and those weights are an unfortunate function of the backlog the the timing of this job falls within a proper pastoral that work is never something that mr rayney has contested that it was inappropriate inappropriately included as a past job his problem is really that he has these additional limitations which were not supported by the record that he had ample opportunity to provide and the fact that the medical experts you savage didn't see exhibit seventeen f and eighteen f also not exactly as mr rayney would have us believe to so problematic it's because those pieces of evidence were included in the record after the hearing after mr savage to doctors at the chest side so there would have been no way for him to see those additional exhibits in the record but the o j considered all the relevant of the in making his decision and i see that my time has expired if i could conclude we ask that this the you could describe a job that he could do except those jobs no exist and that sort of the impression minute here that there's things he could do that would be productive if there was such a job but the there aren't i mean a receptionist is a very vague term some places it's he could be a greeter at walmart and other places could be a very important person who determines which is to the regulation twenty c f r for a four point fifteen sixty six which talks about technological changes and that if someone is unable to reenter the workforce because of a shift in technology that's not really under the scheme that we have and that we're working under that's not the test to say that someone's entitled to disability benefits does that happen if it very well may be happening in many industries but again the regs have contemplated that and in fact have said that's not alone reason enough to find someone disabled nobody's suggesting that alone is reason enough to find a disabled he had a stroke had to leave his job even c t a couldn't the commissioner is correct we don't know what job gail jay thought he could do because if you read this decision he doesn't cite idio teco which is pretty surprising to me i read a lot of decisions by l j i've never seen one with no d and the vocational expert says twice that it's a sedentary job and once that it's like job even though it's misclassified so you know under overmen i think the judge should have picked up on this and you know i don't want to go it seems implied that he knew this by not including it in the decision the l g did give some limitations regarding balance and what's interesting is those limitations are directly out of a listing of disabled listing that's not the case it won't point of at step three and i believe it was the one point zero two it talks about uneven surfaces it's the listing for inability to handle a defectively and he didn't meet it perfectly but it's interesting that he gives limitations directly out of the listing that would meet his disability i can't type you know i'm not your testify so i can't tell you what jobs are available and if the switchboard operator exists but he discussed us