allegations of subjective symptoms and their severity not credible that conclusion however was based on improper legal analysis and is not supported by substantial evidence before an administrative law judge turns the entire record to determine whether or not the claim and subject of allegations are credible the commissioner acquires the o j to first consider and determine whether or not the allegations are consistent with the objective medical evidence alone b l j in this case do not make such a determination and never engaged in any analysis on that point because the evidence is consistent with mr  records that are before us but what's what seems to be at least the subject of competing evidence you can address is for me to me is how this disability  case really turned when when the a l j was looking at it i would agree with that to the extent that mr hughes the ledge the not only is he limited by the pain and decreased mobility and flexibility from his few spine but he also alleged that the fatigue from moving their body maneuvering their body through even simple chores like taking care of his daughters gives him so much for teague that he can't do six hours even of work two days in a row so i realize i mean at least it appears to me that the line of cases that you're relying on is is the line in which we've said just because you can conduct daily chores at home doesn't necessarily mean you can work it depends on how easily you can do them more or less you know if it takes two hours to do something you don't take ten minutes that's not prohibitive but those are findings that need to be made from a record right that's correct and  to consideration the entire it's an administrative law judges can't pick and choose the evidence which they are reliable oh and if there's evidence that contradicts their conclusion and they don't address that contradictory evidence one of the things that hurts him is this statement that he stops looking for work because he doesn't think people want to work with somebody who looks like it was who's got the the bent over back that it's typical for that was an impression he gained from the interviews that he secured while he was looking for work after he lost his job yes those good faith efforts that he made fit and they failed repeatedly and he was attacked the l j's earth of the earth a vocational expert i was surprised at the vocational expert when he was asked about someone who needs to be able to sit alternatively will provided that they're not off task more than ten percent of the work period said that you could have a job selling furniture imagine reach out ten percent sounded like a lot of time to be off task  the crux of this case is as you alluded to earlier the fatigue and all his other symptoms prevent them from being on task even that much and i can't speak for them occasional expert but he testified bricks outside of the breaks permitted one in the morning when an afternoon went to lunch would preclude competitive work would preclude competitive sport interesting so even if that were seen as a sort of accommodation  no harmful air at the first part of the symptom of the only way she process is adverse credibility determination that the second step is not supported by substantial evidence because he ignored or at least failed to address evidence that contradicted each of the three grounds he relied upon for that credibility determination and if there are no questions over the phone so much  her name is catherine segal i represent the commissioner of social security in this case the most compelling evidence in this case is something that the plaintiff's attorney didn't talk about and that was the claimant's own statement about what he could do despite his  and the elderly did rely on tests and determine the intensity the persistence in the functional impact of his symptoms that particular testimony as well as report statements was about his abilities to lift and stand and walk and sit and specifically he said he was able to lift fifty up to fifty pounds and at least twenty pounds he was able to stand for four to six hours total it in a day walk for four to six hours in a day you're looking at page eight is that right of the claim a contented he can sit for one to two hours stand for one to two hours walk for two blocks substandard work four to six i think that's there's a paragraph toward the end of that page that i think here it is bread but he says that it takes him a long time to do that neo's to sit down take a nap afterwards and he's tired the next day after most of law he actually has some elaboration about this right during his testimony he does qualify dead looked specifically at what his statements were about lifting and standing and walking and sitting and so that those with a sit stand option which is also something i'll take credit at will it is switch between those positions that supports an ability to to work and specifically to return to two of his different past jobs as a store manager and as a furniture sales now explain to me this statement until i'm just asking i've never heard i've never seen and you know been here for twenty one years i have never seen a case where ve said that you could just take a break for six minutes out of every hour  that would be ten percent in fact they usually say you know unscheduled breaks would keep you out of the work force to that degree because that amounts to you know practically  forty eight minutes over the course of a day the could be he was talking about taking the normal normal ten to fifteen minute breaks and that's that's something that is allowed it says off task ten percent of the time that's not a that's not a ten minute break off task ten percent of the time and that was a that was testimony by a vocational expert that was economy you can do it and they're not a task that they're that they're able to switch positions and remain on task is that what that's not what it says says provided they're not off task more than ten percent of the work period so if it's now the social security administration's position that there are jobs out there people like that i guess a lot of people would like to know what they are though they said granted this was not something that was challenged by the claims attorney and do you think it's absurd to and maybe it's waived but i do believe it's waves and ok and the  framework the thing that worries me about this case is the failure to take into account the pace at which he's able to do the things he says he can do which does not seem to be  his position is that that's not a working level pace and we do have a lot of the again if it takes two and a half hours to mow to log in it should take twenty minutes that suggests that even if you can push a lawn mower around it's not the an employer would want to do it but that was what the the it to be the daily living that with regard to household chores that was just one small factor that ail to be considered the most compelling evidence is really what the claim said about is what he could do as far as sitting and standing and walking and that he could switch between these positions and and also that he had this condition before for many years beat you know while he was working right but that's why i said if it's a progressive condition then it's entirely consistent to think that he's had it for a long time he's able to work with it for a long time and he seems to be somebody who really is trying to stay in the workforce maybe at some point it's progress to the point that  can't but the clinical findings don't suggest that it's progress to that degree when he went to an examination by dr have fees during the period at issue his gait was normal and he had some flexibility lost in his neck but his back was still seventy degrees of flexion so it clearly had progressed to the point where he was having a lot of flexibility in the some of the most important parts of this trial right at the measure between where the back of his cranium is to the wall keeps getting bigger and bigger he sees hunched over brighter than he is or there he is do forward and that's something that the l g definitely considered and he also accounted for it in the restrictions that he gave where he did pastoral restriction and you know things are moving peripheral business of because of moving the head and and abilities to to do different postures that would be limited by something like a stupid forward pastor but he worked with that posture restrictions the government points to don't account for mr hughes fatigue and that's the critical issue in this case and as credibility analysis whether it's at the first step of the second step of the symptom a valuation process didn't address then just said the other aspects of mr hughes's testimony and personal statement should also be just as compelling in those aspects of the north are those the show the misuse cannot work a full time job eight hours a day five days a week fifty odd weeks a year taking a break he's resting he's not productive in his words that's not consistent with full time work as the vocational expert testified and for all the group all of the reasons we've briefed jay's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because  ignored evidence that contradicted mr to his conclusions and supported mr hughes claim that all right thank you very much thanks as well to the government will take the case under