to the ministry of law and judge's decision in this case denying matthew's claim for disability benefits is incomplete and cannot support an adverse decision o nobody disputes that matthews has narcolepsy or suffers from its symptoms which include overwhelming drowsiness where you are in the structured analysis that the administrative law judges are supposed to go through does this kind of problem come up it's obviously not no limitation falls asleep all the time maybe you can pick up ten pounds or maybe can pick up fifty pounds when you're awake it's a concentration persistence or pace or is it some other place i believe that is the closest area that would apply to a condition like this with these symptoms which are relatively unique compared to other types of opinion under paragraph five what one does not see is something about where you know earlier in the hypothetical given to the location expert one doesn't see and the person can take an unscheduled at least one unscheduled during the day right it's that you're the essence of your complaint that is the  voluntary under this that's right that's correct your honor he has no control over whether he falls asleep whether he becomes overwhelmingly drowsy or whether he can be aware and function normally he has begun to learn some signs of when he's about to fall asleep but he has no control over whether he's going to sleep and he's tried several different medications which have not provided any lasting relief and that is as your honor pointed out the basis of this claim that regardless of whether he hasn't had much treatment regardless of whether the able jay has accounted for that drowsiness in high risk hazardous situations she still failed to consider or even contemplate whether the same risks that apply in hazardous situations would also imply in less threatening aspects of the work randomly falls asleep she didn't believe the six times a day said i'm being very careful not to mention that but even once a day i understand you arguing at least the vocational expert was never asked that question right that's correct the closest it got to a question with that limitation was unscheduled breaks of twenty minutes and the vocational expert testified that that would make the employee unreliable and therefore not fit for competitive employment mr somewhere was your did your client in front of the l j in the proceedings did did he argue for that kind of limitation flexibility or was he making that the much broader point about the six naps i think other words in other words can we fault if you can point us to where the you know i think the argument gets a lot more traction if you can point us to where he was specifically was asking for that kind of more limited restriction rather than the six he never explicitly put in writing or in an opening statement or anything an argument that one that happened today would preclude worry are but that in substance then cross examination he did ask about the unscheduled breaks which would cover both a single map or the overwhelming drowsiness that would require him to or force him to stop working during the day and regardless of whether the claimant or his representative at hearing expressly made that argument the ale jay is still required in this non adversarial proceeding to cover all of the limitations that are reflected in the record attacks of sleep would cause problems in hazardous situations and beyond that the claimants allegations of more frequent maps and more frequent bouts of overwhelming drowsiness implicitly argue that he would have these unscheduled unpredictable uncontrollable breaks during the day and the able jay while she did discount those allegations did so improperly she relied on his activities which are consistent with his allegations she never are explained how his activities which are done in spurts between n oleptic episodes contradict his allegations or support a finding that he could work full time competitive work she relied on his past work but that was just her speculation about what an employer might do given his a clue to fall asleep during downtime her speculations as not rebut matthews sworn testimony that he was hired by his mother's best friend allowed to sleep during down time but was fired as soon as he fell asleep loading a lawnmower onto a truck in a threat to himself and others that same fact pattern and that same result would apply whether he's loading lawnmowers onto a found to be a severe impairment and the that impairment by its nature causes the exact symptoms that matthews complained about and no one doubted that he has the symptoms and that's the essential fact of this case is that no one doubts his diagnosis no one doubts the symptoms they only restrict him as a result of those symptoms of to hazards from hazards and they don't consider a contemplate the same effect in less threatening situations ok well if you'd like to save the rest we can do that thank you  is the inability to control when one experiences either an episode of drowsiness or an actual episode of sleep people actually go into rem sleep when they have symptoms is only partially credible but let's you know he reports to dr holly that he could fall asleep at any time including love bathing eating using the toilet his daily activities or things sitting inserts into periods when he's not asleep he actually has some accidents anyway and you criticize him for not going to the hospital but maybe they didn't need hospitalization  spurred and ultimately to his limitations i don't see the doctors being asked to provide opinions but they did not come in restrictions and they only credit what they said and there were doctors who were asked to provide their opinions  as i said exertional doesn't have anything to do with whether you're awake or not i mean well the o p s natural breaks are the unpredictable breaks that would don't find their way into the r c or the hypothetical well they mr or mr matthews kind of walked himself into this situation by pressing this six naps a day in other words that he spent he spent a lot of credibility in the in the hearing by pressing the six naps a day because it just seemed you know overblown or it came off as overblown and he didn't advance a much more limited in moderate position you know that he needs at least a nap during  standard work day is that a fair or unfair impression i think that's fair i think it goes a little further even matthews also reports falling asleep unpredictably falling asleep w he's driving any thoughts off his bicycle and he's retired from the two jobs city has isn't that evidence in front of it outside beyond his reports that if this is a real problem landscape that his restriction that is narcolepsy restrictions are not that bad he testified that he was able to work eight hour days as a landscaper for three months in the summer of two thousand and sixteen that's not the complete testimony the testimony is because he was sleeping in the back of the truck and then he got fired you know with this lawn mower incident whatever that was said the l j incident reporting the evidence reliably here  if the prison were on a secret that frequency in any year to shoot lions exactly if the ale jay had said even though he was working for the mother's best friend and was sleeping in the truck most of the time you know off and on let's say during the day this was not somebody who was say working on the floor of wal mart eight hour days where lots of other supervisors were looking at them and they could see that they were on the job that might be evidence of a successful effort at work that would supported by the record but do you think she doesn't question that she doesn't cope with the quit the issue that he reports that he's sleeping frequently during the landscaping well of course for many chinese artist every piece of evidence well but purported ones you are supposed to discuss and if this was not actually evidence that you could work for three months in an eight hour day job then the l g needs to explain sellers yes thank you your honor i just wanted to respond to judge scudder's statement about the impression he drew from the record about matthews pressing the six times a day issue  and point out st the i don't think he pressed to six times a day issue he didn't even quantify it until the able jury asked him how often he fell asleep and he said to quote from page forty nine whoa that's a lot i say like six times beyond that there wasn't much discussion about the frequency i'd also point out that regardless of whether the o j credit his uncontrollable bouts of sleeping she had to then account for that into our c n n hypothetical that is the glaring error in her r c that regardless of whether she credited his opinions or discredited them properly she still failed to account for the limitations that she did find consistent with the record and for that reason this case should be remained in because the o'jays decision is not supported by substantial