Does the ability to do daily chores hurt my disability case?

It’s an issue that continually pops up in close cases.  The claimant wants disability benefits. He has made his case concerning disabling pain.  The testimony is very good, then the Judge asks a set of questions, which pop up case after case.

Who cleans your residence?  Do you make your meals? What do you do during the day?  The questions are asked in an off the cuff manner.  The client answers the best he can.

Several months later a decision arrives and in reading it over—THERE IT IS—

‘In activities of daily living, the claimant had mild restriction.  The claimant testified that he loads dishes into the dishwasher.  That he swept the floor, the week before the hearing.  He takes care of his dog.

In social functioning, the claimant has moderate difficulties.  He goes grocery shopping with a friend.  When his friend was working, he drove her to work.  He sees friends every Friday. 

With regard to concentration, persistence or pace, the claimant has moderate difficulties. He checks e-mails on the computer.  He did not note any problems with understanding, coherency or concentration other than he seemed a ‘little confused.’

Do you need to be bedridden to get Social Security Disability?—No, what is required is   a claimant prove that he is “unable to perform substantial gainful activity”; simply put, the claimant has to be unable to work.

Nevertheless, claims of inability to work and testimony on ability to perform many normal activities of daily living, comes up again and again and it gives everyone trouble.  Consider the following, Thomas v. Sullivan, 876 F2d. 666 @ 669 (8^th Cir. 1989) the Court noted:

        “First, we note that a claimant need not prove she is bedridden or completely helpless to be found disabled. Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 463 F.2d 38, 41 n. 6 (2d Cir.1972); Hall v. Celebrezze, 314 F.2d 686, 690 (6th Cir.1963). Second, we remind the Secretary that to find a claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a certain type of work, the claimant must have the ability to perform the requisite acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world. McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir.1982) (en banc). Substantial gainful activity means the performance of substantial services with reasonable regularity either in competitive or self-employment. Markham v. Califano, 601 F.2d 533, 534 (10th Cir.1979). The ability to do light housework with assistance, attend church, or visit with friends on the phone does not qualify as the ability to do substantial gainful activity.”

Leckenby v Astrue, 487 F3d. 626 (8^th Cir. 2007) and Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F3d. 917 (8^th Cir. 2005) have similar holding concerning activities of day living.  While Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F3d 842 (8^th Cir.2007), and Halverson v Astrue, 600 F3d 922 (8^th Cir. 2010) put significant weight upon claimant’s testimony concerning his ability to do such activities.

Consider Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F3d 922 (8^th Cir. 2010) :   

 "We have held that acts which are inconsistent with a claimant's assertion of disability reflect negatively upon that claimant's credibility." Heino, 578 F.3d at 881. Moreover, "acts such as cooking, vacuuming, washing dishes, doing laundry, shopping, driving, and walking, are inconsistent with subjective complaints of disabling pain." Medhaug, 578 F.3d 805. Cf. Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 923-24 (8th Cir.2005) ("This court has repeatedly observed that the ability to do activities such as light housework and visiting with friends provides little or no support for the finding that a claimant can perform full-time competitive work."). In this case, because the record contains several inconsistencies as to Halverson's disability, the ALJ did not err. Heino, 578 F.3d at 881. While Halverson argues the ALJ overstated the extent of her daily activities, the record indicates the ALJ's credibility assessment was proper. Mouser, 545 F.3d at 638 “

A successful conclusion can depend upon the answers to these simple questions.  It doesn’t seem fair, to base such an important decision, one so essential to a claimant upon his ability to do simple tasks of necessary living.  Recognizing the issues, I counsel clients to answer the questions truthfully, but when they answer a questionnaire or the Judge, they should make sure to explain in detail all the limitations that go along with each activity.  You must make known the pain, the following period of disability from overdoing it etc,.  Obviously this does not result in benefits in every case, but it gives the claimant a much better shot at winning, then if the effort is not made.

Disclaimer: Blogs posted herein are intended neither as legal advice, nor do they create nor attempt to create an attorney-client relationship. The person viewing my blogs is admonished that an attorney-client relationship may only be created with the express consent to the parties to it.