all right you may proceed good morning your honor my name is randall ford so i'm represent the disability claim that i have represented the claimant at the district court level and now at this level but not at the hearing level  i know that this case is a is a difficult case and may and depends upon interpret the meaning it in a sentence but one of the reasons i brought it to you is to give the social security administration some clarity so that i don't have to keep bringing these cases to you  designated frequency a position change or the claimant can change positions at will in one sense that they present state law is an artificial construct because this really isn't a claimant directed position change this is an employer directed physician position change at thirty minutes also a hypothetic of the r c has to be backed up by a hypothetical the hypothetical it's here did not match there is an argument that the hypothetical ass is actually hypothetical and the hearing normally had hypotheticals and they did not and normally hypotheticals like this are not objected to however if the judge had stopped at this point what i would the location expert answered every twenty minutes with a two minute adjustment in between so the other thing about the  ask more questions to make it better against me or since is their burden step five do i let them do i let the commissioner  that or other then just say that if you find it defective that it's not harmless error because there is evidence that what she could do is twenty minutes and well that's what she said but then l j rejected that and said no the medical because the alternative a hypothetical in evidence is twenty minutes and when paired with the vocational expert saying twenty minute position changes are worked with but you just said you're not certainly could have raised at the hearing but declined to do so contrary to miss prater's argument bail j sit stand option was not vague and no one at the hearing seemed the least bit confused by a failed to be unambiguous in asking mr macby the vocational expert to assume a hypothetical that allows an individual to change positions in the course of the day but would need to remain either sitting or standing at least thirty minutes at a time mr make be understood that this meant the individual could change positions as much as she needed to do so as long as the position changes did not occur more frequently than every thirty minutes there are three important points that run contrary to miss prater's argument in this case st mr make the expressed no confusion regarding the hypothetical number two as judge kenny identified misc prater's counsel offered no challenges to the hypothetical and in fact when invited to do so i asked mr m no questions rd miss prater today fails to argue that the evidence warranted a more restrictive r f c than that which they jail timidly adopted the specificity scuse me st let's discuss mr mcveigh briefly the record shows that here in a master's and rehabilitation counseling in two thousand and four where the concentration and functional job analysis and forensic rehabilitation he's been a vocational expert since at least two thousand eight hundred and ten years we've been hearing and before that he was an adjunct professor at bowling green were instructed on foundation of the book ational rehabilitation process he's a member of several vocational professional organizations he's published several papers on the occasional rehabilitation profession mr mcbee explained that although the dictionary of occupational titles does not address the ability to alternate between sitting and standing he relied on his experience and education in responding to that i did mr mcveigh further testified that he relied on his performance of several rehabilitation functional job analyses his work in job placement and job coaching and his own observation of how jobs are actually performs miss prater challenged none of this testimony during the hearing nor did she do so now your honor is both cut a boater and schmidt recognize that an r f c allowing for a claimant to alternate between sitting and standing at the claimants on option is appropriate here this is exactly what dale described in this case the only difference is that here the o j offered more specificity by indicating that ms prater would need to remain either sitting or standing at least thirty minutes at it now importantly this does not mean that ms prater must change positions everything only that she would be allowed to do so as she deems necessary within these confines the specificity of a l j describe distinguishes this case further from the arnett case in which that yohji vaguely stated that the climate would be allowed to alternate sitting and standing throughout the work that the l g sit stand your honour's substantial evidence supports the elegies decision in this case the threshold for substantial evidence review is not a high loft it calls for deference to the presiding l j who saw the hearing up close is not enough that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion it must actually compel that conclusion miss prater simply fails to satisfy this standard and for this reason we would respectfully ask this court for the pharm parse st from the vantage point of the attorney at the administrative hearing that attorney doesn't know which hypothetical is the judge is hypothetical all that attorney knows is that there are several hypotheticals any one of which could be the judge's hypothetic so long as one of those hypotheticals fits the claimant's theory of the case then really contention at these hearings probably creating probably five to ten more minutes of hearing time which is a very valuable resource i'm kind of arguing their argument right that i usually hear and more and so at least from the ministrations attorney standpoint the judge asked a hypothetical that it is theory of the case it was the one that had to do with the  position change every twenty minutes and from the venues point of the attorney at the mystery of hearing there was evidence to support that hypothetical and then i would ask you  eyes the claimant much because i do ever i don't think i've met her but this was this lady was a very hard worker you look at her work record she worked i believe about twenty seven years she weighed