causes her to feel tired and exhausted during the day particularly in the eleven to two o'clock period where the fatigue gets overwhelming that she has to rest that she's standing silence because he limited her from driving for more than thirty minutes at a time being exposed to open heights unprotected heights or hazardous machinery so we recognize the symptoms but then  didn't go on to actually deal with her testimony which was quite extensive of both hearings about how she would fall asleep and that in fact on her job as a customer service representative for a first job she fell asleep talking to a customer on the phone and then on her second job when she went back to try to do the same kind of work she was in training and she was falling asleep in the training so much so that the trainer asked her to come and sit up  front of the room but she still couldn't concentrate was dozing and had to put that quit that job according to social security ruling ninety six j must in the in the near it is of his decision or her decision in this case explain whether or not symptom related limitations are consistent with the record and because its outcome determinative if ms cooley could not ensure that she'd stay away on a regular basis on a job she could not sustain that that were the vocational expert at the two thousand and twelve hearing testified to that that imply was dozing off from time to time at work will not be able to sustain competitive employment which the timeframe and all of the question is it is a time when she had to by a certain time had to show this disability yes at september thirtieth of two thousand and twelve is when the day last ensured expired but and heard testimony at the two thousand and twelve hearing  shortly after that date last i'm sure so i think it showed what her condition was and when she returned to work or tried to return to work that was in two thousand and ten when she was falling asleep during the training so that was prior to the expiration of the insured status and when she worked as a customer service representative preet prior to that and was falling asleep or fell asleep talking to a customer on the phone that was also prior to the day that  prior to the day last insured that they l j should have considered did she have a sleep study at some point she was using a c pap machine so i think that's the only just sleep study i saw was done in two thousand and five and in that sleep study it recognized that she had the obstructive sleep apnea but the conclusion was that hopefully that if she could get five hours of sleep continuously at night using the c pap that would resolve her daytime sound but the evidence shows that it didn't even though she was getting five hours of sleep a night it did not resolve her daytime would consider whether she's doing any better or whether she's in the same situation now whether her condition improved at some or whether she now has a disability it's more discernable i guess well because her share status expired that wouldn't matter she would have to establish disability before two thousand and twelve to be eligible for any benefits she's not eligible for supplemental security income no in addition to l j symptom of valuation was improper as too often happens in these cases the l j relied on the claimants daily activities finding that they undermined her allegations of incapacitating symptoms but even they are j recognize that the household chores the cheap performed were done with frequent breaks frequent rest periods that she could only drive for short periods of time he noted that she sometimes took care of her grandchildren but he she sees me they'll just when she did not know that the claim that testified that that only consisted of watching television with her grandchildren playing with them a little bit until she the claimant got tired so these are exactly the kind of daily activities of this court has held over and over again really don't undermine the claimant's claim of disabling symptoms under the i read th decision is not reasoning that way but saying i'm focusing more on what ms coolio is telling me about how disabling her symptoms are and these activities are not consistent with her description i viewed it more as a credibility finding rather than a disability impermissible or not  all it's permissible if it's true if there's if it's connected to the evidence but they all day doesn't explain what about ms coolies activities which were very limited were inconsistent with the limitations that she gave to the  administrative law judge that she had to nap sometimes during the day that she was limited in setting to i think it was twenty to thirty minutes and standing for fifteen to twenty minutes there's nothing about her daily articulated her view of the evidence to apprise it of her reasoning to permit the court to conduct meaningful review and as reflected in our brief our position is that the answer is yes that the court can tell what the ale jay thought about his coolies allegations of sleep apnea and the limitations that resulted from it relegations that she needed the ability to shift positions between sitting and standing and generally her allegations that she was  the court can look at what the l v a said and and review the record and tell that the l g was actually pretty diligent in sort of the evaluation of this case this is a situation where the appeals council received the original cooley was disabled due to multiple impairments and the ail j provided that but also in abundance of caution went and got a medical expert to testify that this was you know the record proceeded because that case had gone to the appeals council sometime in the past it was clear that the it was really concerned that there was there appear to be evidence about a constellation fatigue related impairments that she wasn't quite sure what the record supported in terms of limitations with regard to those impairments and in fact even wasn't quite sure watched impairments were supported in terms of diagnosis right and engages in a discussion with doctors and got the medical expert who testified in twenty fourteen about that the twenty five pages question beginning on page sixty two of the record ending on page i believe eighty seven where she asks what does the what does the evidence support impairment acknowledged the allegations of daytime somnolence acknowledged that she was using a c pap machine and then cited what dr demagogue pointed out which is the fact that when you looked at the evidence could have made notes documenting the fatigue instead just documented her complaints of fatigue but the other the other problem and this is a problem in fifty cases is that opposing counsels sort of brief shot through with this notion that the male j in these cases has to conclusively disprove her allegations of fatigue in order to not credit them and that's that's simply not the way the program set forth the burden of evidence always exists of the claimant up to step four of the problem of the disability adjudication process and then ultimately what is the able to do in a situation like this where there are six opinions one of them by and on doctor which is reasonably discounted by the ale j because it's so inconsistent with the opinions by the doctors including da the functional opinion given by dr path ar found sleep apnea to be a severe impairment gave a functional opinion in march of two thousand and eleven and the only additional limitations that he included in that functional opinion for the team were no use of heavy machinery and no driving and the ale jay addressed both of those limitations didn't include the limitation to no use of heavy machinery but did include a limitation to driving only thirty minutes because that was consistent with her testimony at the hearing the court can take note that none of the jobs that the vocational expert identified require the use of heavy machinery if it's concerned that the lack of inclusion of that additional limitation might be a problem but that the key consideration is that when dr pepper gave a set of functional limitations those functional mutations were actually consistent with the ability to work even if they were just taken sort of if his opinion  forward your honor but it's clear that dr nima got it didn't think that dr pepper carr's treatment notes included the kinds of clinical observations of fatigue that would have bolstered the view that she was she was as limited as she alleged right that when when looking at the evidence there's much evidence that she says that she's she's limited but there's not evidence that her doctors observer to be so  clear but i want to just really quickly the fact that dr pepper also did have a note in one of his treatment now that said o s a cannot work and important thing about that note is that it comes in january twenty fourth team which is one and a half years after the date she stopped being insured for benefits but the anal j took account of the conclusory opinions that dr pepper gave and said you know these aren't giving me functional restrictions which you know that i can work with that i can sort of figure out whether they should be included in the r c c and also one of the concluding opinions was dated the same day as dr pepper carr's march twenty ninth two thousand and eleven functional opinion so to the degree that he thought her to be quote unquote disabled it's clear it should be clear to the court that those set that set of functional restrictions that he pointed out was what he meant by disabled that he thought she was that limited and as reflected in our brief that's consistent with the finding th was not disabled under the program with respect to i want to address that sort of briefly the sort of general subject of symtom argument opposing counsel briefs sort of ask the  the addressing individual leave the statements that a claim makes the court has taken a very sort of reasonable view of articulation and said you know look we're going to read these things commonsense  indicated that she had was disabled because of the sleep apnea back in two thousand and eight he provided a statement and plan to just ask the courts read the quoted sections that we put in our brief and in this case it's the l j does not actually talk about the fact that ms cooley fell asleep on her job that he found it was an unsuccessful work attempt when she tried to work and whether or not she would fall asleep that she was to be given