{"id":336,"date":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=336"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","slug":"sosa-bisignano-ed-cal-reverses-ssi-denial-misread-daily-activities-volunteering","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=336","title":{"rendered":"Sosa v. Bisignano \u2014 E.D. Cal. Reverses SSI Denial, Holds ALJ Misread Daily Activities and Part-Time Volunteering"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Sosa v. Bisignano<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
1:25-cv-00659-SKO<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security disability, SSI, daily activities analysis, part-time work, subjective symptom credibility, remand<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The plaintiff, Randy Lee Sosa, sought Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on the basis of physical impairments that, he testified, required him to lie down or take long breaks several times a day. The Social Security Administration’s administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the claim, finding the plaintiff’s symptom testimony only partly credible. The ALJ relied on four observations from the plaintiff’s daily-life activities: that he could (1) ‘care for young children at home,’ (2) volunteer for two to three hours, (3) sweep and mop with breaks, and (4) drive.<\/p>\n

Federal courts review Social Security denials under the deferential ‘substantial evidence’ standard, but the Ninth Circuit imposes a stricter requirement when an ALJ rejects subjective symptom testimony: the ALJ must give ‘specific, clear and convincing reasons’ supported by the record. Daily activities can be a permissible reason to discount testimony, but only if those activities are inconsistent with the claimed limitations or show the claimant can perform functions transferable to a work setting.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court vacated the denial and remanded for further proceedings, holding that none of the ALJ’s four reasons was clear and convincing. First, the plaintiff’s children were teenagers \u2014 not ‘young children’ as the ALJ stated \u2014 and the record was largely silent on the actual extent of his childcare activity. Caring for school-aged teens, presumably away from home most of the day, is not the same as the demanding care of small children and does not show capacity for transferable physical functions.<\/p>\n

Second, on volunteering, the record showed the plaintiff worked only two to three hours one or two days per week. Part-time activity of that scope is not necessarily inconsistent with disability; the ALJ failed to explain how the limited volunteering contradicted the testimony about needing extended breaks throughout a workday.<\/p>\n

Third, on sweeping and mopping, the plaintiff had explicitly testified that he had to take breaks while doing chores and rest between each activity. The ALJ misread that testimony, which actually corroborated rather than contradicted the symptom testimony. Sporadic chores punctuated by rest do not show capacity for full-time work.<\/p>\n

Fourth, on driving, the plaintiff had testified by 2024 that he no longer had a driver’s license. While the ALJ cited driving as evidence of ‘high daily living,’ the ALJ did not rely on driving as a contradiction in the testimony, and the court could not affirm the agency on a ground the ALJ never invoked.<\/p>\n

The court found the error was not harmless because, had the ALJ credited the plaintiff’s testimony about needing two or more 30-to-60-minute lying-down breaks each day, the vocational expert had testified that being off task more than 20 percent of the workday or requiring multiple unscheduled breaks would preclude competitive work \u2014 meaning the disability outcome may have changed.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n