Giuseppa M. v. Bisignano

Background

Giuseppa M. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income under Title XVI on August 8, 2022. The Social Security Administration denied the applications initially and again on reconsideration. After a video hearing on August 23, 2023, an administrative law judge found that she was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review.

The administrative law judge found severe impairments involving degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine and degenerative joint disease of the shoulders and hands. The judge determined that Giuseppa M. could perform light work with restrictions, including no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; only occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; occasional stooping, crouching, crawling, and kneeling; frequent balancing; no overhead reaching with either arm; and frequent handling and fingering with both hands.

At the fourth step of the disability analysis, the administrative law judge concluded that Giuseppa M. could perform her past relevant work as a sales attendant. The judge therefore denied her claim without reaching the fifth step, which considers whether a claimant can perform other work.

Issue and arguments

Giuseppa M. challenged the finding that her sales-attendant job was past relevant work. Under the regulations applicable when the administrative law judge issued the decision, past relevant work generally meant work performed within the previous 15 years that involved substantial gainful activity and lasted long enough for the claimant to learn it.

Giuseppa M. worked as a sales attendant at Ritz Camera for two months in 2009 and earned $3,085.79, or slightly more than $1,500 per month. She argued that because she worked seasonally and only for a few months at a time, her income should have been averaged over the entire year. Under that calculation, she argued, her earnings would not meet the threshold for substantial gainful activity.

The Commissioner argued that the earnings should be measured over the period when Giuseppa M. was actually employed rather than spread across a full year. The recommendation also discussed decisions explaining that earnings below the usual guidelines do not conclusively establish that work was not substantial gainful activity, and that part-time or seasonal work may still qualify.

Analysis

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s finding. In 2009, the monthly earnings amount used to identify substantial gainful activity was $980. Giuseppa M.’s earnings from the sales-attendant job were more than $1,500 per month, exceeding that amount. The job had a specific vocational preparation level of 2, meaning it required more than a short demonstration and up to one month to learn. Because she worked for two months, the court concluded that the work lasted long enough for her to learn it and qualified as past relevant work.

The court also stated that her earnings appeared more likely to reflect her intermittent work choice than an inability to work throughout the year. It concluded that the administrative law judge’s determination was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the regulations.

Recommended disposition

Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that Giuseppa M.’s motion for summary judgment be denied, that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and that the matter be dismissed. The recommendation stated that it was not an order or judgment of the District Court and was not directly appealable. The parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.