please the court my name is greg lalas and i represent amy thomas in the social security disability appeal i know you had a long morning and my time before you was brief so i will get right to the point we have two arguments for reversal here first that the l j potential conflict between the east testimony and the d o t as reasoning levels not only take the second argument first the limited mr thomas to work requiring one to two step tasks and  that corresponds best to reasoning level one in the d o t classification system the d v e however identified two jobs one the label cutter job that requires reasoning at level two and second a new account score job that requires reasoning at level three now there is a threshold issue i think working here that really was not joined in the briefs and that is whether this limitation to one to two step task corresponds in fact to the d o t as reasoning level one we assume that an argument are brief the government didn't didn't raise the question but i figured that you probably would so that's why i submitted the rule twenty eight j letter last week citing two circuit court cases one from the ninth circuit the rounds case which case which decided after we had submitted our reply brief in this case in which all of these courts conclude that that the limit when an ale j limits a claimant to wanted jobs requiring one to step task that is off the table now is not right well i think if they have that's that would be great i'm not sure that they conceded that in their brief perhaps the government's counsel could could clarify that but they did not address the level to job i think that's probably what you're referring to we didn't address the level two job in the brief ok so if in fact the level two jobbers is no longer in play it's hard to see out of the level be exactly because the d o t reasoning levels go from the least complex complicated to the most so i would think if she cannot do if there's a conflict between the level assume that when the v gives his or her opinion that there are jobs that this person going to be or she is talking about those jobs within that category that in fact court in the more case in the hillier case and in the rim fro case all talked about how a limitation to simple instructions would not necessarily be inconsistent with reasoning  level two or level three but a limitation to simple instructions does not correspond to any of the d o t reasoning levels here if we assume that the limitation to one to two step task corresponds to reasoning level one which is that the person is limited to simple one to two step task then we have a categorical conflict and this conflict is is evident on the face of the d o t classifications it's on the face of it it's a conflict the possible conflict and that's all the case law in this court to the more case the kemp case which dealt both of those dealt with overhead reaching all that has to be identified as a possible jobs could be performed by somebody with reasoning at level one and in this case mr thomas suffers from borderline intellectual functioning it's possible but that would have to be explained  v to say look you have to yeah i've observed these jobs and i think a significant number of them could be performed by by person with with reasoning level one but but without that consistent with the i mean how and the answer was yes it is how how do we approach that the question was asked it was answered yes this is all good to go whose burden who has the burden in that situation is is it the the fault of the vocational expert is that the fault of the a l j to not see what i say fault i knew that use that loosely but who who has that responsibility to sort of follow up if that is indeed and erroneous answer yes once the once the claimant demonstrates either she has no past relevant work or she cannot perform that then the sequential analysis moves to step five that's where the burden shifts to the government to come forth with evidence that the claimant is capable of performing other work in the economy so in answer to your question i would say that that burden is on the l j so security ruling zero zero four p places that burden squarely on the  j the pearson case out of the fourth circuit also places that burden on the l j and in the in the camp case in this in this circuit the court specifically said that that it's not enough simply for the  ask if there is a conflict and the ve to say no there is no conflict so i think that in this particular case the ael j failed to resolve this conflict and and for that reason we would ask for  reversal the the second argument we have is that the l j improperly discounted the treating doctor's opinion here the o j gave two reasons one it was that she did not s specialized treatment and as we've answered that in our brief i think the problem there is that she didn't have the financial means to seek specialized treatment she was often on of medicaid when she did have or medicaid she she did go for treatment particularly for mill health provider but she testified that she could not afford treatment when she didn't have that with respect to the daily activities none of the activities  good morning and may it please the court my name is tracy ramani and i represent in the n c a a barry hill the acting commissioner of social security your honour's i'd like to start with the first point in this case which is whether the l j properly relied muster i'm the l j here at the end of the day it limited mr thomas to unskilled work under the regulatory definition of unskilled work and the vocational expert variable occasional workplace changes and the jobs had to be learned in thirty days or less this is entirely consistent with the regulatory definition of unskilled work which is work that requires little or no judgment to perform simple duties that can be learned in a short period of time and the a l j in this case went even one step further within his r f c assessment he specified that he was limiting miss thomas to jobs with a specific vocational preparation level of one or two which again corresponds to the regulatory definition of unskilled work so even with that limitation to one just two step tasks the a j under the regulations place miss thomas in the category of unskilled work and the vocational expert here identified an unskilled job with the specific vocational preparation level of two that she could perform now mr thomas would have us focused on would have us focus on the comparison between the r f c in this case with the limitation to one to two step tasks and the reasoning level of three contained in the d t however in comparing those two she loses sight of the big picture in this case which is again under the regulations we have an unskilled job or vocational expert identified an unskilled jobs she could perform the social security rulings explain that explain that vocational out of it in including the d o t cannot be used to establish that an unskilled job under the agency's regular tory definition has duties that exceed the definition of unskilled work so here when read in that context again miss thomas would like us to read the reasoning level of three in isolation but when reading contacts the d o t says this is an s p peachy job therefore it follows that regardless of the reasoning level i maybe i'm not understand completely but how do we factor in the part of the hour of c that says a complexity of one to two step tasks right what what meaning does that have then in the context of of the hypothetical scenario all fall into unskilled work which at the end of the day is consistent with the able j s r f c finding he specifically limited mr thomas to jobs with a specific vocational preparation level of one or two and the part of the d o t that corresponds to the regulatory framework is the skill level sabbats what that's really the contention here in this case pointed out in her order in this case because the law in this circuit is is yet on resolved to this very particular issue of the ala jay had a reasonable basis at the time of the hearing for relying on that either level two or level three reasoning is inconsistent with unskilled work so we maintain that they filled his duty to ask and enquire about a potential inconsistency and he had a reasonable basis case however in that case the judge conceded that the law in this circuit is still unresolved yet they chose to follow the lead of the night circuit in finding that one to two step tasks is more consistent with level one reasoning and as a final point hitting on the treating physicians opinion in this case the treating physician here said mr thomas could not perform even sedentary work and that is the least physically demanding type of or possible he said that she could not walk even one block she could stand for five minutes at a time and could only sit for ten minutes at a time so while some of  thomas's activities may have been completed while sitting in a chair her activities of as a whole are inconsistent with the severe limitations she cared independently for her five year old son she went to a karaoke bar approximately twice a month she was able to care for her personal hygiene and perform these household chores i mean even if sitting down but still inconsistent with the opinion that she could not sit for even ten minutes at a time or excuse me for only ten minutes at a time and as to her failure to seek treatment for physical impairment she still she has sided her lack of medicaid or her lack of medicaid coverage the fact that she lost her health insurance but she still has not put forth any avodah that she saw and was denied treatment due to an insufficient funds or lack of insurance with which is long been the standard before this court she also has not put forth any evidence that she saw and w denied treatment due to insufficient need that she even sought to seek out low cost or no cost medical treatment and i finally point out that the relevant period in this case begins in january twenty third team and our record reflects that she had regained her medicaid coverage as of feb twenty fourth teen yet as to physical impairment she did not seek any special treatment for the remaining eight months of the relevant period which  inconsistent with the extreme degree of physical limitation dr hall of the saddest therefore substantial evidence supports the a l j thirty five determination and his evaluation of the treating physicians opinion in this case we may please the court i have just a couple of quick points left on rebuttal the government's argument is that because the l j limited this thomas to unskilled work that's no conflict with reasoning level three that's not exactly true in the lucy case which is cited page twenty six in our brief the court recognized there that unskilled work can encompass multiple different reasoning categories but the court said that sometimes people who are limited on skilled work but also limited to reasoning level one cannot perform jobs with that require reasoning at level two but what's important here is the l j went on to add additional restrictions to his r f c finding he went on to find that she could only perform jobs that have no more than few variables with a k usual changes in the workplace well guess what reasoning level three requires the ability to be able to contend with ms where money court appreciates councils presents an argument to the court will take the case under