during that period to about ninety ninety four he said yes he after each hospitalization he had to rest for a couple of months because he was just it was too much for him but he did some work in between and was paid cash now the a l j did not go any further into there to determine how much money he had made or how often he worked the slow forward what you  in his decision is that even if i found that he did not engage in substantial gainful activity i would still find him to stabled now that to me would not appear to be a statement of an impartial educator he had the opportunity to ask him a few both questions and really just something act as to whether or not he had engaged in substantial gainful activity during that tried to determine is how much money did he actually make because if you made a certain amount of money at that you were considered engaging in substantial gainful activity activity he didn't ask him that he  ask him how many days do you work this would have given him some sort of a foundation for the just vision that he made but he didn't do that so out up to the ministry of law judge roofer and at that time he fractured his right ankle which required reconstructive surgery in other words and put a plate in screws and so forth he received workman's comp for about a year then after that he attempted to work he would work one week and three days and he then was unable to work after that and when he became sixty five he was fifty i think a fifty seven at that time so when he became sixty five he went into into retirement benefits now at that hearing the judge that there was he would have that with the plate and screws and so forth one thing that concerns me no medication for the pain was pretty mild and furthermore the doctors said he could go back to work it seems are good a doctor with a patient complaining of severe pain would nevertheless know you could go back to work well after the one year of work is calm he had no money nothing else i know that the what about the fact that the doctors indicated he could go back to work well dr lee at first said he could return to work but then when he re he said that he has the restrictions and so forth that he cannot return to work but so is there anything in the record that shows that dr levy examined him or did he just write a letter he who has seizures and so forth are there any jobs in the national economy that this individual could do that is the usual policy he didn't do that it would appear that he had made up his mind that he was just going to find of the individual not just sables if you want to save the remaining time for me by now yes all right thank you when he went back to work he received a further three years of benefits based on the program then in existence and the l j determines based on clear it's own testimony that he was working and in this case he's available for medium work and having to go further either with a hypothetical or specifying which jobs within that huge category he actually is able to do with limitation not in this case your honor in this case and my house locational expert when he himself found out it step for the claimant could not return to past rather than work as a roofer therefore he should have had a vocational expert at step five to give him a straight what jobs the claimant could do considering his limitations and restrictions he didn't do that he just went to the guidelines which he should not have used with this type of injury that he had