brain damage has resulted in her requiring special supervision essentially a nanny and at that hearing the haitian larkspur testified that anybody  requires special supervision is unemployable for purposes of social security for the administrative law judge one of the administrative law judge omitted that misspend cronan required a reminder to look at the schedule because there's no point in having a schedule if one doesn't look at  the opinion of the treating psychiatry was that miss van cronin had to have special supervision to sustain ordinary employment the results of the digits backwards could not repeat three objects after three minutes or five minutes and she were cited symptoms of hopelessness helpless  or lack of interest that she was carried at her job in some respects she had to hear out for others taking her orders she was waitress and she had to have help caring for trays seven but close to it she it is i mean we just read along with their child all day long oh no oh no she's not she is alone with her child less than twenty hours a week rest as i analyze the read her boyfriend only works twenty four hours and we well her mother comes over and other people come over as if if i recall correctly i thought her mother just checked in on her i phone occasionally dropping  well the and it just wasn't it wasn't clear that you know she requires the level of supervision that you're articulating right now clearly you know on the job when she went back to her waitressing job after her fall and head injuries hours only working three days a week she needs help gets accommodations from the employer etc and that's very clear in the record but in terms of her her functional capacity at home your argument that she can't work but but that let's not exaggerate the exact testimony of her boyfriend was that she has to have reminders to follow her list of activities so if it could be possible that there  there i don't know the record the record is definitely on clear on that point but i seem to remember that the figure of twenty hours that she was left alone with the child of claimants medications claimant testified that they made major drowsy and they to you baby improve her memory but she couldn't take them because they made her drowsy so the idea that of her for a problem was solved by medication is incorrect because the medications brought different problems altogether five percent of the time actually it's it's a little bit higher without your employable for social security purposes so what's your primary diagnosis is it that the symptomology of the head injury yes i'd say cost or difficulty she of she had an auto accident when she got to one of her seizures the primary problem is she can't work without special supervision j determined that there were none the last jobs and the economy could perform her determination in that regard was supported by substantial evidence and l j did not care and considering the subjective statements of either ms and korean or her boyfriend she r there was no fail jay found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that she could that she was limited from working less than forty hours a week there was one point where her treating neurologist said that she should be limited to six hours at a time of working vacuum that opinion came at a time when her when she had stopped taking her anti seizure medications against the advice of her physician when he found out that she had well according to your opponent   because it's not always work precludes have to be drowsy and furthermore you're on our network to have a mind where you can be drowsy and nod off to sleep and so on the still forty hour week well she may have been drowsy at the time that she made that report to her ologist your honor but at the time of the hearing when she was sitting across from the chase she told the l j i have no sort of side effects from my medication she did not report that her she had it she said well i have no side effects from my medication the l j said do you have side effects from your medication and she reported not that i noticed you know so she is said to be l g is phase i do not experience side effects councils now saying that she testified otherwise but that was the hear counsel's assertion that she testified that she had side effects from her medication the testimony that i see in the transcript she responds to the l j is question about side effects with the answer not that i noticed no so there's no evidence that years she reported experienced drowsiness and that's why she stopped taking her medication her neurologist then explained to her how important it was to take the medication and restarted her medication at that time he said that she should be limited to working six hours at a time and should not drive the following month she came back to the neurologist and said that her she had not had a seizure since then the neurologist examined her gave an opinion or stated in his records that she should not drive but he no longer repeated the limitation to a six hour work day didn't lift it he didn't express the left it but he didn't repeat it and he did repeat that she should not drive and the l g adopted that opinion that she should not drive and she should not be exposed to hazards even though her seizures are under good control with the medication but the ail j did adopt the opinions from dr your man is her treating neurologist that he gave in january of two thousand and eleven which again was before her alleged amended alleged onset date but nonetheless the l j understood the severity or that the dangers that a seizure disorder pose and included those on the tier should she get can she get to work if she doesn't there's no indication that she can't be the activity reports that she submitted that both she and her mother submitted and dictated that she doesn't drive she goes if she's goes in a car somebody else drives but she does go out on her own she can walk she can walk to work distance for can she be employed well certainly there's other transportation options you're on how do you know is there evidence of that you're out of the regular is there evidence of that i don't know that there's pacific evidence i don't know what is specifically in the senate what's the general over well the general rule under the regulations your honor is that if there are jobs available in the economy that an individual can perform under her residual included in the social security act or its enabling right regulations that make sense to you yes your honor why the administrative burden of establishing whether there is a specific job available to a specific person i think with the extreme one of the only job is in alaska that's certainly not the case here your honor shirts not my question not the standard your honor here in the l j and her decision acknowledged the diagnosis of fibromyalgia and found it to be a severe impairment but it doesn't affect her ability to work it does affect her ability to work but it doesn't make her unable to work one it means that she's limited to light work without significant physical obligation physicians opinions because the doctor only saw the patient twice a year that was one of the that was one of her considerations that it's just sort of medical practice you go to see your general practitioner would suggest that she should have been receiving more frequent care she had quite severe opinions about going about turning her head lifting her head looking up listing her shoulders using her arms her she said she could only sit for twenty minutes very significant limitations that were unsupported by her treatment history and that was not the only reason that the l j discredited as our doctors use the dr jones as opinion dale j also not that her opinion that she gave in two thousand and twelve was contrary to the opinion that she gave in two thousand and ten which clearly which cleared mists then perience returned to work out any what kind of job search she held previously she worked as a waitress i believe that's the only that's the only job that i'm recalling from the from the record and the jury found she could no longer do that job as a waitress but that there were other jobs that she could perform she could be a cashier you said shipping and routing shipping clerk once a shipping clerk essentially i'm a mail a mail room clerk is my reading of the description your honor i stand corrected as to the matter of the medications as counsel correctly pointed out the statements about the medications were to the doctor not the secondly the testimony only examiner was that the standpoint couldn't handle fonts so i think she might have some difficulty as a cashier is there anything else the court would like me through my address no thank you thank you