Kim v. Kijakazi
- Alex Tse
- 3:20-cv-08737
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kim v. Kijakazi, Judge Tse granted Kim’s summary-judgment motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Heidi M. Kim’s Social Security disability claim was sent back for further administrative proceedings; the Commissioner’s denial of benefits was vacated, but the court did not order benefits to be paid.
What happened
Heidi M. Kim challenged the denial of her Social Security disability benefits in Kim v. Kijakazi. She said pulmonary conditions caused breathing problems, weakness, difficulty concentrating, and a need to lie down frequently. The administrative law judge rejected her testimony partly because she grocery-shopped and performed household chores.
The court found that these activities did not convincingly conflict with Kim’s reported limitations. Grocery shopping could be completed quickly, and cooking, washing dishes, and doing laundry did not necessarily require substantial stamina or strength. The administrative law judge therefore lacked a sufficient reason to discount Kim’s testimony.
Judge Alex G. Tse granted Kim’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court vacated the benefits denial and sent the case back for further proceedings, rather than ordering benefits to be paid, because conflicts and ambiguities remained in the record.
The detailed version
- Kim v. Kijakazi · No. 3:20-cv-08737
- Alex Tse
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
Heidi M. Kim sought judicial review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her Social Security disability benefits. Kim testified that emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease caused breathing problems, weakness, difficulty concentrating, and a need to spend much of the day lying down. She said that after standing for 30 to 60 minutes, she would need to lie down for 15 to 30 minutes to improve her breathing.
The administrative law judge discounted Kim’s testimony because she reported doing her own grocery shopping, preparing meals, washing dishes, and doing laundry. The judge viewed those activities as inconsistent with Kim’s claimed limitations. The Commissioner defended that reasoning by relying on decisions in which courts upheld credibility findings based on more pronounced conflicts between claimants’ reported limitations and their daily activities.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the activities cited by the administrative law judge did not convincingly conflict with Kim’s testimony. Grocery shopping was not necessarily an all-day or labor-intensive activity, and Kim could have completed it within a period that still allowed her to lie down afterward. Preparing meals, washing dishes, and doing laundry did not necessarily require substantial stamina or strength, particularly because Kim lived alone. The court therefore found no comparable discrepancy between Kim’s reported limitations and her activities.
The court also noted that the administrative law judge had cited a lack of medical evidence supporting the severity of Kim’s symptoms. But an administrative law judge may not reject a claimant’s testimony about subjective symptoms solely because medical evidence does not corroborate it. The court concluded that the administrative law judge had not provided another convincing reason to discount Kim’s testimony.
Ruling and effect
The court held that the administrative law judge erred, vacated the decision denying benefits, granted Kim’s motion for summary judgment, and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court remanded the case for further proceedings because conflicts and ambiguities remained in the record. It did not order payment of benefits. Judge Alex G. Tse signed the order on March 2, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.