Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Lee applied for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. An administrative law judge denied the application, and the federal district court in the Southern District of California affirmed the Commissioner's denial. Lee appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which decided the case by unpublished memorandum after submission without oral argument.
The ALJ found Lee's leg and spinal issues non-severe, relying on medical examination and treatment records. According to the memorandum, Lee was full weight-bearing without assistive devices despite a fractured right fibula and a reported limp. He did not make an appointment with an orthopedist for his knee despite a referral. His ankle pain improved with conservative treatment, and he needed no injections or surgery. He could walk on his heels and toes, had no nerve-related leg pain during an exam, and showed normal spine activity. The ALJ also acknowledged Lee's testimony about a right shoulder impairment but found his statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence.
At the past-work stage, the ALJ concluded Lee could still perform his past relevant work as a companion for seniors. Companion work is generally classified as light, semi-skilled work. Based on Lee's own description of his day-to-day duties, however, the ALJ found the work as he actually performed it was sedentary and unskilled. Lee testified that his main duty was to sit in a chair and watch elderly people, that he gave them pre-prepared meals, that he sat with each person six to seven hours a day, and that sometimes he did nothing for the entire shift.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that the ALJ properly rejected Lee's testimony in concluding that his leg and spinal issues were non-severe, because numerous medical examination records and treatment evidence supported the conclusion that he lacked serious impairments of the foot, knee, leg or spine.
On the right shoulder, the panel said it had concerns about the ALJ's analysis, which failed to capture the full scope of highly relevant medical evidence. It nonetheless concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that Lee could perform his past work as a companion at a sedentary residual functional capacity. It relied on Lee's testimony about his duties, the ALJ's classification of the work as actually performed, and Lee's testimony that he believed he could do the job again. Because Lee could perform past relevant work, the ALJ found him not under a disability under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) and stopped short of a full disability evaluation.
The panel also upheld the ALJ's finding that the companion job was not performed under special conditions, which could otherwise suggest Lee lacked the ability to do substantial gainful activity under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1573(c). The ALJ found Lee applied on the open market, not through a subsidized program or a family friend who might have eased his duties. The ALJ also relied on an email from Lee's employer, who did not report giving Lee any special accommodations, subsidies or reduced job duties because of an impairment. The court concluded the Commissioner's decision was not legally erroneous and was supported by substantial evidence, citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). It affirmed and ordered no remand.
Key Takeaways
- A court may affirm a denial based on the ability to perform past work, even when it has concerns about how the ALJ analyzed one impairment, if substantial evidence independently supports the past-work finding.
- A claimant's own description of his actual duties can support treating past work as sedentary and unskilled even where the general classification of that occupation is light and semi-skilled.
- Evidence that a claimant was hired on the open market, together with an employer's report of no accommodations, subsidies or reduced duties, can defeat a claim that past work was done under special conditions.
- Findings that leg and spinal impairments are non-severe can rest on weight-bearing without assistive devices, improvement with conservative treatment, no need for injections or surgery, and normal examination findings.
- The memorandum is unpublished and not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Why It Matters
The memorandum shows how deferential substantial-evidence review of Social Security denials can be. The panel openly voiced concerns about the shoulder analysis yet affirmed, because the ultimate finding that Lee could do his past companion work was supported by his own testimony and the employer's account. Claimants challenging a denial should therefore address the specific evidentiary path to the final finding, not just isolated flaws in the ALJ's reasoning. The memorandum does not describe the shoulder evidence in detail or explain why the concerns did not require remand, so its reasoning on that point is limited.
The disposition is unpublished and carries no precedential weight outside Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. It resolves only Lee's claim: the Commissioner's denial stands, and the memorandum orders no further administrative proceedings.