Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lindsey C.F. applied for Social Security benefits in April 2022. The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied her claim, finding that despite her impairments she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a range of work. The ALJ partially discredited her testimony that she could not work due to severe pain and depression, that she could sit for only five minutes and stand for only three minutes, and that she had upper extremity limitations.
Lindsey sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), arguing the ALJ had not given clear and convincing reasons for discounting her testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s “most demanding” clear-and-convincing standard, the court found the ALJ identified independently valid reasons for the credibility finding, each supported by substantial evidence.
First, the ALJ relied on inconsistencies between Lindsey’s testimony and her course of treatment — particularly her gaps in pursuing care for the conditions said to be disabling. Under Tommasetti v. Astrue, an unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment can weigh against a claimant’s credibility.
Second, the ALJ properly relied on Lindsey’s daily activities, which the court found arguably contradicted her assertion of totally debilitating symptoms. Most pointedly, Lindsey was paid for caring for her aunt 73 hours per month — performing light housework and cleaning her aunt’s stoma — and was helping her son with home schooling. She also reported to consulting and treating providers that she did household chores, ran errands, shopped alone, prepared meals without help, and went for short walks. She told her therapist she was working to access water aerobics. By June 2023, she reported to another doctor that she had been more active, was sleeping well, had started walking the dog, was gardening, doing more activities around the house, and had bought roller skates and was skating with her son.
Under Smartt v. Kijakazi and Trevizo v. Berryhill, daily activities can support an adverse credibility finding when they contradict the claim of a totally debilitating impairment. The court emphasized that Smartt-style daily activities need not show that the claimant could perform full-time work — just that the testimony exaggerated the severity of the limitations.
Because the ALJ’s reasoning was specific, supported, and reasonable, the court declined to second-guess the credibility determination and affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Paid caregiving work — even at part-time hours — is a particularly powerful basis for an adverse credibility finding because it shows the claimant is performing physically demanding tasks for compensation.
- Cleaning a relative’s stoma, doing light housework, and assisting with home schooling are activities incompatible with total disability claims.
- Reports to therapists and treating providers about increased activity (gardening, walking the dog, water aerobics, roller skating) can independently support credibility findings.
- Under Smartt and Trevizo, daily activities need not demonstrate work capacity to discount symptom testimony — they need only contradict claims of totally debilitating impairment.
- Gaps in pursuing treatment for the allegedly disabling condition (Tommasetti) remain a powerful tool for ALJs and courts evaluating subjective testimony.
- The clear-and-convincing standard does not require the reviewing court to be convinced — only that the ALJ’s rationale has the “power to convince.”
Why It Matters
This decision provides a useful counterpoint to other recent Central District orders (such as Tobias M.P. v. Bisignano, where the court reversed) showing how the symptom-testimony analysis cuts in different directions depending on the record. When a claimant performs paid caregiving and reports increasingly active daily life to her own treating providers, ALJs have a strong record on which to base credibility findings — and reviewing courts will defer.
For practitioners representing claimants, the case is a reminder that medical-record statements about increased activity, especially to therapists and treating providers, can be devastating to disability claims. Counsel should consider whether to address those statements proactively, perhaps explaining context or fluctuation, rather than allowing the ALJ to use them in isolation.