became unable to work due to her bones disease or her history of neck pain or depression and for the the h d purposes of our discussion today and real non conservative intervention for the crones was a colon resection in two dollars so far and that she had been treated with essentially with medication management since that time the cl said that even in her testimony that the crones was really just as bad if not worse after that section and it is flawed but she lives she lived and worked with crowns prior to the problem with the colon arising from what fifteen years and there was a lot she said she suffered it's a shame she's suffered from this disease for a very long time yet absolutely r you know twenty sounds correct that it is the in her testimony in the rich don't say that the crones has gotten worse over the last ten years and we're looking back at this point from two thousand and thirteen so the crones got worse in two thousand and three she had the colon resection two thousand and five she a lot of time off from two thousand and five to two thousand and eight and then stopped working in two thousand and eight there's really nothing more that can be done for the crones except for medication intervention understand what you're saying but i mean i'm looking at the ale chase opinion and it's a rampage eight chicha there's a paragraph which she turns to the crown discussion but one of the problems she says  is the actual documented instances of the flare ups are not at all well documented that's a little redundant but anyway none of the serious complications of cr parent that same paragraph is where she says the claimants had crohn's disease for many years and was able to work with that condition right now and i look at the same part of the decision you're looking at judge what i find  you know the judge characterizes as being under fairly good control and she looks to period so there ups for as evidence that essentially ok it really only causes limitations during these periods of flare ups but if you look at the record the for instance in the at the record of page three sixty seven in june of two thousand and eleven she reporte flare up with constant diarrhea six to nine times per day but then during i guess what you wouldn't call a flare up because it's not called a flare up in the medical records  record three seventy five june twenty fourth january twenty fourth two thousand and twelve of the plaintiff told the doctors she still has to go to the bathroom six to nine times per day and in a function report which is in problem so that would sit there would seem to me that that considerations built into what the l j is thinking about well you know i guess the key key point really judge is speaking about it because in illustration i note that in looking at the judge's decision close to where you were looking at page twenty two at the top of page twenty two of the judges to see it i'm sorry  same page you're looking at at the top she says she's talking she has a lot of analysis about the claim it's neck pain which is part of her prob not really her most to save me impairment in my view and she says the treatment records fail the show any consistent i'm going hand her neck pain path which would limit her work abilities beyond the lifting limitations he did in this decision so the judge is limiting the plaintiff to lights were it looks like specifically because traits in a day in addition to the brakes that are already pretty bided at ten minutes in length that would generally be considered chaminade position this is on page fifty seven of the record page twenty seven of the transcript does the a l j resolve what could be the important question whether these bathroom breaks need to be five minutes a piece which seems to be somehow within normal workplace constraints and or ten minutes  but if it doesn't make a specific finding about that it doesn't that as mr brown was saying doesn't that make all the difference if there are ten minutes a piece of a sudden you know six times ten would be an hour you know if it's at the low end  day it's not an hour and a half if it's only five minutes apiece then one could imagine you know visiting the restroom before the workday begins two hours later two hours later that's just three breaks during the day and one of them probably coincides with lunch very easy to see that that probably doesn't preclude employment since important well off a couple points about the most critical thing is that this case was decided at step four where they five minute breaks yes so if she needs ten i'm just trying to play through this i'm just a little surprised that you don't have a finding from the able j i don't think the record supports ten you know because she held down the other job i were it's  speculate but why why did that happen to the critical point again it's just that she had worked in the bigger job in the past with the same level of frequency and use the restroom  what's the record to compel the l g to find that she needed a specific limitation but we don't know based on the past work whether she just happened to have a very forgiving employer who didn't mind if she was away from her desk for a ten minute periods of time or whether you know she was really staying within five minutes we don't we don't know any of those details which might be relevant to her ability to have future comparable work at the step forward looking for well what's what's critical is that the found that she couldn't perform her past work as she had actually performed it statute but i understand the a l j said that and believe me after all these years i certainly understand the difference between step four and step five but what i don't see in the record is what we sometimes encounter sometimes people say you know even though i needed to take a lot of extra time off work my employer was very flexible you know they let me work an extra half hour at the end of the day or whatever maybe they just let me not be at my desk as much sometimes you see that sometimes you see work too long fillers who really mean five minutes and that's it and we don't know why her particular past work was something that work c finding considered clean up reports that she had no difficulty concentrating thing attention following instructions or getting along with others she considered that kind of perceive the medication under primary care providers she gave different way to the medical opinions  the record that her failure to follow up on some of these things and the limited medication counts for economic reasons which means which might not which would doctor when she has symptoms of depression i don't see any clear indication that financial constraints are limiting her ability to get care how many addition she postpones the colonoscopy forever though maybe says she doesn't want to do it but you know it record i'm not certain sure that there's clear evidence so that she's unable to see out that she's ever referred to even see a specialist or that she was unable to do so for financial reasons and there's evidence that she went to fight off family counseling sessions those records aren't included but they're certainly evidence that she was able to see some sort of professional for a family counseling issues also defendant asserts that there were no medical opinions in the record from the claimants treating sources and that that is true in terms of a explicit medical opinion that she can't work because of her crohn's there is nothing in the record that says that what we are asserting here is it that it's at the claimants allegations which are well documented in the record of the frequency of  analyzed or explained explicitly enough by the by the ill j most regardless of those medical opinions i do think that especially in conjunction with what the vocational expert said here explicitly don't with that evidence she would have had to say something like she has to take x amount of rest periods pre date that are unexpected all right thank you very much thanks to both counsel will take the case under a