Do you have to be practically bed-ridden
before the Social Security Administration will agree you have a
disability? It almost seems that way!
Here are some actual law cases, with
citations, showing how the Social Security Administration views
your activities of daily living:
CRAIG: At age 41, the claimant
applied for Social Security based on her back condition. In
addition, she said she suffered from Bell’s palsy, headaches,
depression, and panic disorder. The ALJ (Administrative Law
Judge) denied her claim since she was able to do many normal
activities of daily life. She could drive, shop, visit friends,
and pick up her grandchild. The ALJ ruled that she was capable
of simple, unskilled work such as being a telemarketer. Craig
v. Apfel, 212 F. 3d 433 (8th Cir. 2000)
POWERS: Judy Powers alleged back
and leg pain. She had breathing problems, and stopped driving
because she could not concentrate or remember where she was
going. She was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The ALJ
(Administrative Law Judge) denied her benefits, saying her
activities of daily living showed she could work. Her
concentration was not so bad if she could read, play card games,
and watch TV, the ALJ said. The appeals court expressed
skepticism with the idea that watching TV is proof of one’s
ability to concentrate, but agreed that a card game does require
concentration. The ALJ also said Ms. Powers could sit long
periods of time, because she sat through the whole hearing
without any trouble. Powers v. Apfel, 207 F. 3d 431 (7th
Cir. 2000)
TANG: Since his car accident,
Mr. Tang has suffered pain so severe that it brought tears to
his eyes. However, the ALJ turned down his claim for benefits
since he was not taking prescription pain medication, and he was
able to help his kids get ready for school. He could also climb
stairs and do the laundry. The appeals court disagreed with the
ALJ. "Tang’s ability to engage in domestic activities
like [these] provides scant evidence of his ability to perform
full-time work." Tang v. Apfel, 205 F. 3d 1084 (8th
Cir. 1999).
URTZ: "...plaintiff leads an active life,
participating in teaching, book writing, letter writing,
socializing, and traveling." She drives, does housework,
and shops for groceries. She develops her own photography
pictures. She volunteers at church, and belongs to historical
societies. She has no regular medical care, no consistent use of
pain medications. Held: not disabled. Urtz v. Callahan,
965 F. Supp. 324 at 330 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
LAWRENCE: Level of activities shows that pain was not
all that severe. Lawrence v. Chater, 107 F.3d 674 (8th
Cir. 1997).
PETERMAN: Mere fact that plaintiff could perform some
household chores was not an adequate basis for discounting his
subjective claims of disabling impairments. (He was also able to
visit with his girlfriend, go motorcycling, boating, tubing).
The ALJ must explore plaintiff’s pace and exertion level.
(Cites.) Peterman v. Chater, 946 F.Supp. 734 (N.D.Iowa
1996).
MANDZIEJ: Plaintiff admitted he cooked, shopped,
cleaned house, mowed his lawn, and used a snow blower in the
winter. He traveled to a gym for exercise, to swim and work out
several times a week, as "treatment" for his bad back.
This type of treatment regimen actually provides evidence of his
ability to work. (He did not see a regular doctor and
took no prescription medications.) Mandziej v. Chater,
944 F.Supp. 121 (D.N.H. 1996).
HAMILTON: This claimant’s reported activities of
daily living are minimal and consistent with her reported
fatigue. Hamilton v. Chater, 942 F.Supp. 1354, 1364 (D.Or.
1996).
RIVERA: The ALJ erred by failing to ask this pro se
claimant to elaborate on her daily activities. She said she
could "window shop a little bit" despite her asthma.
How far can she walk? She has her son help carry grocery bags
into the home. How does she get to the store, and how much do
the grocery bags weigh? Remanded for new hearing. Rivera v.
Chater, 942 F.Supp. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
ADIE: According to ALJ, the plaintiff could cook,
clean, and care for his 3-year-old son. In fact the plaintiff
only made an occasional sandwich or changed a diaper. The child
was in day-care while his wife worked, so he was not the child’s
caretaker. Adie v. Commissioner of SS, 941 F.Supp. 261 (D.N.H.
1996).
MILLER: Evidence of plaintiff’s driving and
employment don’t provide much evidence that he retained the
ability to work full-time. He worked briefly and was fired for
poor performance, which points to disability at the time he was
trying to work. Miller v. Chater, 99 F.3d 972, 978 (10th
Cir. 1996).
BENDT: "[A]ctivities of cleaning, bowling,
working on cars, mowing the yard, taking out the trash, driving,
visiting friends, reading the newspaper, and grocery shopping
are activities inconsistent with the allegations of
disability." (Plaintiff has explosive disorder; injured
right hand; obesity; IQ of 75.) Bendt v. Chater, 940
F.Supp. 1427, 1432 (S.D.Iowa 1996).
ROHAN: Repairing and selling lawn mowers on a part
time basis is not inconsistent with a diagnosis of major
depression. Cites Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d 335
(7th Cir. 1995) where ALJ believed that claimant’s ability to
work as a security guard and carry a gun was inconsistent with
depression. Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 971 (7th Cir.
1996).
KOENIG: Activities such as cooking, laundry, light
housekeeping, visiting friends, cooking in backyard, shopping,
and water aerobics, are inconsistent with complaints of severe
pain and fatigue for this woman with fibromyalgia. Koenig v.
Chater, 936 F.Supp. 776 (D. Kan. 1996).
EBACK: Minor activities like household chores,
driving short distances, Bingo, and helping care for an infant,
are not inconsistent with disability from full-time work. Eback
v. Chater, 94 F.3d 410, 413 (8th Cir. 1996).
MACRI: The claimant did complete an electronics
training course, but that does not prove he is capable of light
work, according to dissenting opinion. Macri v. Chater,
93 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1996).
ROE: His woodworking hobby keeps him busy 8 hours
a day, 5 days a week, but his output is low. He also does
housework, washes dishes, does odd repair jobs, shovels snow,
and mows the lawn. He was claiming disability due to obesity,
Somatoform disorder, bipolar, dyslexia, functionally illiterate,
and weak knees. Held: not disabled. But the dissent says
woodworking is just a hobby, and he is disabled. Roe v.
Chater, 92 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 1996).
HOLLEY: Light housekeeping, or driving a car, does
not by itself prove the ability to engage in full time work.
This plaintiff can lift 50 pounds on occasion, and assists in
the care of his disabled son who weighs 50 pounds. "[S]uch
activities do not reflect an inability to perform light
work." Holley v. Chater, 931 F.Supp. 840 (S.D.Fla.
1996).
BLYTHER: Plaintiff reads, performs light housework,
walks her dog half a mile, drives locally, and shops for
groceries. She fishes in clement weather. Her alleged
impairments are minor problems. She is not disabled. Blyther
v. Chater, 931 F.Supp. 60 (D.Mass. 1996).
HANNA: This plaintiff has depression and
fibromyalgia, so she takes frequent naps. ALJ may discredit her
complaints of pain because she is able to clean "in
spurts," care for child and small dog, shop for groceries,
drive around, and cook dinner occasionally for a friend. Hanna
v. Chater, 930 F.Supp. 378 (N.D.Iowa 1996). 51/4/309.
SHELTON: ALJ says that Plaintiff’s limited
activities were a result of his lifestyle choice, and not
medically necessary. (Can shop, attend church twice weekly,
drive, visit friends, read, and watch TV. Doctors had not
limited his activities.) Affirmed. Shelton v. Chater, 87
F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 1996).
BROWN: Plaintiff’s subjective pain complaints were
not substantiated by medical records. She testified her
activities consisted only of taking medication, taking baths,
lying down, eating crackers, sleeping, etc. The ALJ was
justified in ignoring plaintiff’s testimony about extremely
limited activities in light of medical records, which did not
support her claims. Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963 (8th
Cir. 1996).
WOLFE: Plaintiff alleges back and chest pains.
However, he testified that he had lifted rocks, and had an
ongoing avocation of mobile home washing. That type of activity
tends to negate allegations of back pain. Wolfe v. Chater,
86 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 1996).
LESTER: Occasional symptom-free periods-- and even
the sporadic ability to work-- are not inconsistent with a disability. (Citations.) Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,
833 (9th Cir. 1995).
ADDITIONAL CITATIONS: Markham v. Califano,
601 F.2d 533 (10th Cir. 1979); Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d
802 (10th Cir. 1988); Ragland v. Shalala, 992 F.2d 1056
(10th Cir. 1993); Talbot v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 1456, 1462
(10th Cir. 1987); Cavitt v. Schweiker, 704 F.2d 1193,
1195 (10th Cir. 1983).
Go to Social Security Listings.
How to prove a psychiatric
disability.
