as a result he earned part of his body and he had to have skin grafts the skin grafts according to an examiner caused reduced sensation to light touch and pinprick sensation in his thumbs and index fingers at the hearing the vocational expert testified there reduction to occasional feeling would would preclude work the administrative ward judge did not take into consideration the reduced since ation to light touch and pinprick in her r f c original residual functional capacity the the estimate of what this individual could perform it also had the other deficit in our of c had to do with the metal component dr gokhale who was the plaintiff appellants psychiatrist found that claimant was virtually incapable of attention maintaining attention and kind of situation and in his ability to keep a schedule the fuck punctual maintain regular attendance at that if you don't need a listing done then the inquiry has to go on farther to consider the r c and whether it permits work the commissioner's examiner found that plaintiff appellant had a poor fund of information it impaired abstract conceptual resetting was borderline intellectual and he had a global assessment of functioning of forty now forty is beyond  there was only a moderate impairment in concentration persistence and pace and she did not give good reasons for discounting the opinion of dr gokhale and her own one time he failed to pass a physical and another time he was let go because he made too many mistakes so we have sort of an empirical scientific demonstration that he couldn't work because he couldn't pass the physical and if and when he was permitted to try he made too many mistakes which is consistent with the opinion the mental opinion of the doctor gokhale in the commission mental and physical yes both yes they are c was deficient both in its mental and in its physical component would you do the e c or is there one well the ve said that well of course if you can't keep a schedule or you can't work a full day or you can't keep a persistent pace or maintain attention and concentration any of those things precludes work and do if he had the limitations that i've spoken of now with it i guess we are right whether he whether he injured his hand picking up a plate or trying to help this friend repair some implement doesn't make any difference he he he didn't do it right he couldn't do it right be one can work a forty hour week and finally finally the here we have o'connor spinner once again the district  follow this court's precedent in o'connor's and o'connor spener the administrative law judge found a moderate limitation in concentration persistence and pace and did not put it into her hypothetical her residual functional capacity you know that's less cuties right and in my case that's what happened with the same person well no it's a different person but but give a translation to the vocational expert of those limitations that the record supports right and it's on a commonsensical reading of the elders decision it's clear that's what ale did present to the vocational expert all of those limitations that she thought were credible and ultimately if her finding was reasonable then the courtroom  but the other issue is the court has said and said no congressman that in most cases a finding of moderate concentration persistence or pace cannot be accommodated simply by a translation to simple repetitive tasks it didn't say not it said most of the europe which followed after which was also cited in appellant's brief use more caustic language in part because i think the court was concerned exactly enough for the court to be a protestant that she did not think more limitations were required when the tailgate discussed concentration persistence or pace at step three she found that store and had no more than moderate limitations and specifically took note of the fact that he himself testified that he could concentrate for one to two hours at a time and that he had worked for two months now it was a failed work attempt but he said that he was fired because he was making too many mistakes and did not allege that he couldn't concentrate on his work and he sort of had no trouble he didn't legend trouble with the physical tasks he did but the examiner didn't translate that into any limitation in the only medical opinions of record to speak on whether there were manipulative limitations set no so the examiner herself in two thousand and twelve said that he it went final in two thousand and eleven there was a two thousand and seven nation that showed that immediately in the aftermath of his burn incident he had more limitations he had only four or five strengthen the family as he had greater grip limitations and so whether there were manipulative limitations that no noted the of all sion of the finger tip but said said it was not expected to cause any limitations that lasted more than twelve months which is what's required by the regulations for them to be included in evidence of being able to work in some capacity for any length of time i mean he has only worked for the it looks like for the two month period and well you g ultimately became a failed work at times but the but the ale j also and i think this is really at the core of the remainder of the case is that the l g s credibility inference was exceptionally strong opposing counsel seeks to minimize the individual statements that the l j discredited but the l j was the fact finder found like a litany of discrepancies between his testimony and the record and then his also his stepmother discrepancies between what he said his activity level was and what it actually was what he could do what he couldn't do when and how he applied for work whether his resume was updated it was why he was let go from the job that he was let go there was a record of it is there something that you said what he said he couldn't do there's evidence that he did it yes that's correct john and that's what you're saying that's correct on a so for example he testified he went every day to his sister's house to watch her kids he testified that his mother almost always drove him she immediately following that testified that he almost always walk the talk or way where she's a couple blocks yeah well that's what he said he could only one walk one block at a time so it i don't find you to be a credible witness and in turn then to say doctors gokhale and kieffer constituted a psychological examiner who only saw him once were too credulous of his statements about his in the inability to work and about his concentration impairments or limitations and that that is why those doctors were discounted if you read the decision specifically because they can't for sure but the notes are handwritten and i think there are only about two or three pages of them in the record and so because of that and because of the short nature of dr who use relationship with him before he'll pond it was reasonable for the elder first  and twelve gave findings that were consistent with the ability to work with the exception of the pinprick like touch compressed which wasn't translated to a feeling limitation she said that he had five if i shrank that he could emulate normally and so forth at parts one and three of dr pitman's mental residual functional capacity assessment the ail trait addressed both aspects of part three and aspects of part one and there are there are a couple of moderate limitation check box in the part one of the form that i see that my the she she had to articulate some reason for disregarding that finding the examiner versus not examiner well the two examiners agreed that psychological examiners dr gokhale of the commissioner selig cmin ever agreed that claimants mental impairment was beyond moderate we're going to be on moderate beyond moderate yes global assessment of functioning of forty or fifty those are serious moderate would be fifty one to sixty seriousness forty to fifty or wait a minute forty one to fifty and forty beyond and serious is this one to one hundred people reading yes one to one hundred and it's approximate the and as far as the o'connor