when did you stop working he never asked her a very different question when do you feel you became disabled why is this distinction important submit long did you work in one thousand nine hundred ninety we simply know that she worked in that calendar year he never asked her why she stopped working he never asked or under what conditions did you stop work i'm a little concerned now that th asked we're going to put a burden on j's to become lawyers for the person to develop their case and i understand she was pro se at this time but we have a law that says i understand we have to forgive the full record i understand that but there's a little difference between a full record and a record that the person becomes a civil law judge and starts asking questions  substantiate case for what's the closest creature you have that in a l j has a responsibility i'm going to give a two part answer to your question george well that you might start with my question i am what is your closest case both judge jury and trier of fact because there's no litigant there's no there's no counsel for the peripheral either side and i think in so far as the stablish in disability i think this is a very fundamental question i don't think this is a very fine point that only a little counsel would speak to i think this speaks to the essence of the underlying claim what is the onset date of disability well let me let me ask you just stop there  to make sure i understand this if i am looking at this you know two thirteen which is actually page three of the actual decision that the  so if you think beginning at nine hundred eighty nine and there's two ways to look at that is that january one thousand nine hundred eighty nine and with those three months to make a difference in this case between october and january one that she actually worked during that year during what part of the year we don't know that's again going back to my earlier question when i state a rhetorical email just should have said when did you actually work in one nine hundred eighty nine so i don't know what month  that there was a break between when she when she said she became disabled in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight apparently and this is nothing more than speculation on my part she tried to go back to work when the season started  she may well be disqualified because she had prior work experience but we couldn't figure that out without knowing the exact dates is accurate we can't figure it out without knowing more about the one nine hundred eighty nine work for how long did she work why did she stop and if in fact it becomes an end once we know those those answers then we can say with some degree of certainty it is or isn't or it is not an unsuccessful work attempt if we find out that it was an unsuccessful work attempt under the medical vocational guidelines of the grid so it's a matter of law the judge had to find her disabled because she had no past relevant work experience as that term if she were disabled later in one nine hundred eighty nine and this work or before that then it would be past relevant work experience if we have the dates concise and if yes we just don't know we just don't know if we say it's not an unsuccessful work attempt that she worked most of the guidelines he cannot circumvent them by merely asking a vocational expert in essence want to ask you anyway what can the person do he would be the balance by her medical vocational profile ok she'll experts testified there's nothing wrong with that it would prevent her from working on an assembly line as fast as a matter of law again count it doesn't count his opinion would be would be of no relevance at that point because under the medical locational guideline that history as we've stated on our brief she was again and again advised that she had a right to counsel and she waived that right but as for her past relevant work experience claimant is arguing that if she became unsuccessful work attempt because she stopped allegedly proceed so called unsuccessful work attend must be an interruption of continuous work activity so what she's trying to argue is i stopped work because of my impairment i tried to go back i only worked a month therefore that count cannot according to that decision the summary of the evidence in that decision we don't have any evidence that shows she stopped working in one thousand nine hundred sixty two when in paris and according to him sorry i'm trying to find the ruling here according to the social alleges that during the present hearing as well and those work ups in january of one thousand nine hundred eighty which were several months even after the so called unsuccessful work attempt we're all negative so we can engage in a lot of well first of all i think the confusion arises from the from the claimant she says she stopped working or she alleged that her disability at various times she's changed the date sometimes she says she became disabled in october  let's just say she has some additional work back then in the eighty's that would it wouldn't be included it would depend on what date you went forward with so it all comes down to the thing i'm having a little trouble with is how can you figure any of this out unless you land on some days as date well but that's i think the district court judge acknowledged that in his order and he said there was some confusion and then he had a footnote about whether she last worked in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight or nineteen eighty nine it fell within the fifteen year period preceeding the elegies two thousand and two decision so that really goes to the one nine hundred eighty seven eighty eight work as opposed to what is mean because we're kind of swimming around without knowing to just read the end of ink give the answer to this question and get clarification well but again i think this is the situation where the evidence in the record simply shows that she worked in one nine hundred eighty nine she earned substantial gainful activity earnings in one thousand nine hundred nine and that fell within the fifteen year period for past relevant work that's what the record shows council is making now years later offering a whole bunch of different theories as to you know how we should have looked at this at the time and that's all fine you could do that with every agency decision again  fifteen year period she's arguing now that well no that was an unsuccessful work attempt you're supposed to disregard that but even so she hasn't met the criteria of social security ruling eighty four twenty five all right thank you  believe i guess that that break in continuity was due to the impairment that there's no there's no evidence of that i mean she may have stopped working because she just didn't want to work anymore at that time and then the law and the evidence that we do have i documented in the previous a l j decision which summarizes somewhat contemporaneous evidence to that time that early one nine hundred ninety medical evaluation which was made that you actually have your points in mind in the juxtaposition between the two parties the case just