good morning ladies and gentlemen our first case for this morning will be allensworth against colton mr ship may have please the court jim shift on behalf of the plaintiff ryan elsewhere if this is a social security disability in which the administrative law judge made several errors we are asking this court to reverse on two main issues first they all j's residual functional capacity finding was not supported by substantial evidence because she did not explain how she determined the mr allensworth was capable of performing simple routine and repetitive work and second as your main point there that she doesn't connect the sleep problems the fact that he he might fall asleep in the middle of the day to the simple work that she thinks he can do yes or honor and second the elegy erred in assessing mr allen's words credibility and light of evidence showing that his allegations of sleep apnea related daytime somnolence were supported by the objective evidence and his limited daily activities mr allensworth suffers from several impairments including degenerative disc disease of the cervical and one of our spines obesity headaches and severe obstructive sleep apnea prior to applying for disability mr allensworth was employed as a sheet metal worker in the construction industry earning upwards of seventy thousand dollars a year as your honor indicated the bulk of the evidence in this case  mr ellsworth had the positive blood test for narcolepsy but the sleep study technician stated that it would be a very rare occurrence for somebody to have narcolepsy end of struct of sleep apnea although it was possible for someone to have both so what about the evidence of  machine improved his sleep could look parity quite considerably if he was only waking up once during the night with the machine there were some aspects of his sleep apnea that were improved by using the machine at night he was waking up less often he was feeling more refresh in the mornings but the problem is that the l j did not connect evidence showing that he continued to fall asleep during the day with evidence showing that he could work the ala jay in our view made an independent medical determination and concluding that the symptoms of sleep apnea headaches and pain would result in the same limitation to simple routine or repetitive work and our view is that reversed was required because  they did not substantiate her finding with evidence either subjective or objective that show that mr ellsworth could stay awake sufficiently to complete the kind of work that she found that he could do now could my recollection is correct me if i'm wrong is that the vocational expert there was an there was a vocational expert here right yes and that person said that if somebody were to fall asleep during the day there would be no jobs right so so just focus i think that's really the issue here i had the cervical m r i all these other problems that he has don't seem to to really change things much yes we agree or honor and the issues with the ale just decision is that in her analysis of the treating physicians opinion she focused only on the back impairments i did not discuss doctor in locke's opinions regarding ability to stay awake during the day and to come complete a normal work week out interruptions from the symptoms  the evidence in this case shows a mr allensworth fell asleep doing almost any kind of activity whether he was helping his son with home or whether he was driving watching television using the bathroom anything that he was doing he was falling asleep so even if he was more refreshing in the mornings he was still falling asleep during the day because the records show when he moved out from his home with his i suppose now ex wife and moved in with his parents the record does not speak to that but the ellsworth was living with his parents suggests that he had additional help with taking care of the daily activities and the record shows that he was not taking his dog on a walk he was just letting the dog outside and the only driving that he was doing was driving his autistic son a block and a half to school every morning so the son would not get lost this court recently held in varga view colvin that a limitation to work involving simple work related to sit ins that was free a fast paced production requirements did not adequately encapsulate an individual's limitations and concentration persistence or pace that were related to the claimant's anxiety depression physical problems and pain they all j is residual functional capacity finding in this case is less restrictive than the finding in barca because the l j found that mr allensworth could perform three production rate types of jobs even if they were simple were cina repetitive he would still need to maintain alertness to complete the tasks j summarized dr in locke's opinions on the issues that we are arguing for a reversal but she didn't explain why she rejected them and this is a problem for three reasons first male j must always provide for rejecting the opinion of a claim is treating physician and also dr m a lot provided the only opinion on this or allensworth ability to concentrate persist in the workplace so she spends a lot of time on the other that the sea pat machine did not relieve the symptoms that he was having during the day so while we admit that there were improvements in some aspects it didn't resolve the problem it's also notable that mr ellsworth was prescribed the medication  to assist him with alertness and he took double the prescribed dose just to stay awake but it was insufficient to keep him alert so when he's doing activities like reading news articles on the computer and he's still falling asleep we don't believe the evidence shows bat he would be able to maintain a production rate type of job for eight hours a day for five days a week they all j also made a number of on reasonable inferences regarding mr allensworth credibility j correctly noted that he experienced some improvements but they did not address the evidence of the limited daily activities which demonstrated that he could not maintain alertness for any kind of extended period they isn't is a little bit puzzling in the credibility finding because she says that she credits symptoms associated with daytime somnolence she credits the symptoms associated with sleep apnea but not this is verity of the sleep apnea and good morning your honor from a please the court my name is allyson schwartz and i represent the commissioner of social security based on the arguments and the responses from the court i'm going to focus mostly on the sleep apnea here  with regard to the elegies explanation of the r f c the l b j acknowledged mr allensworth testimony that he would fall asleep at a work station and that he had daytime  there is in this record is that his as and i'm looking at the a l j his opinion not anything else is that his mornings were more lucid then they had been that doesn't tell me number one anything about the afternoon in order to be found able to work you've got to work for eight hours not four and secondly more lucid than they had been doesn't tell me any absolute information about whether what does this mean you know he used to fall asleep five times and now you only falls asleep two times you still can't work so i don't think the a old in any way coped with the fact that he falls asleep and even the least skilled job cannot be done if you're sleep least thought that you can't hold down a job if you're all of a sudden for fifteen minutes at a shot asleep right well the difference here is that mr ellsworth reported that as you mentioned before instead of waking up every forty five minutes he was only waking up once in the middle of the night and then again i'm looking at the l g s opinion he reported waking up once during the night instead of every forty five minutes and he was waking up more refreshed he reported that although he still had daytime somnolence at the computer meaning he's falling asleep at the computer and while driving hopefully not falling asleep there his mornings were more lucid than they had been that's the most that he ever says there is finding was that based on his review of the medical evidence as well as his absence of a show of mr ellsworth testifying was that he did not believe that mr allensworth would fall asleep at his workstation but there is no evidence at all of this woman roxanne kelsey that seems to think that if you have a simpler job to do you're not going to follow sleep which for which there is no medical evidence for which there is no common sense for which there is nothing this a l j never fun it's that mr allensworth doesn't have sleep apnea sleep apnea causes people to fall asleep during the day because of the poor quality of their sleep at night he also has the hypersomnia that's throughout the records you can't tell me that there's no way when they're all of the evidence is on one side that the a l j can just say i'm finding the opposite finding there's no substantial evidence i cannot say there is no statistical honor i will say that the opinions that have been issued have been before the date of this hearing also the regulations require that he that he determine the number of jobs in the national economy the regional economy and the local so your regional economy was defined as chicago plus six counties and there's no mention of the national economy or the lo that the claimant was represented by an attorney at the hearing who made no objection to this testimony for a while where was the where was the where was the administrative more judge issue falsely also in the middle of writing o gave right supposed to be of national regional and local and just great regional thing that i think it's correct that they just gave a regional or local pending on how you would define