SSDI Appeals: Limited Daily Activities Do Not Tell the Whole Story

Being able to prepare a simple meal or make a short shopping trip does not, by itself, explain whether someone can sustain a workday. In Debbie F.C. v. Bisignano, a federal district court found that an administrative law judge had not adequately connected those activities—and other evidence—to the claimant’s reported limitations.

The September 3, 2026 decision reversed an SSDI denial and sent the case back for further proceedings. It did not award benefits or decide that the claimant could not perform any work.

Daily activities need context

The claimant had severe fibromyalgia along with shoulder, neck, and spine conditions. She testified that sitting or standing for more than five to ten minutes caused severe pain and required her to change positions. The ALJ nevertheless found that she could perform light work with restrictions and return to her past work as a portfolio manager/analyst.

The ALJ relied in part on limited driving, simple meal preparation, light shopping, and occasional dog care. But the court found no adequate explanation of how those activities contradicted her testimony or demonstrated skills transferable to work.

Daily activities can matter in an SSDI case. The question is what they actually show. How long does an activity take? Can the person pause or change positions? How often can it be repeated? A limited task performed on someone’s own schedule needs context before it supports a conclusion about sustained work.

Normal findings must relate to the symptoms at issue

The court also questioned the ALJ’s reliance on normal examination findings. The decision identified no adequate explanation, supported by a cited medical source, connecting those findings to the severity of this claimant’s fibromyalgia pain. The court recognized that fibromyalgia symptoms can fluctuate.

That reasoning does not make normal findings irrelevant in every case. It requires attention to the condition being evaluated and what a particular finding can establish. Here, the court also found a pre-onset MRI of limited relevance. It explained that a preoperative note about climbing stairs or doing heavy housework appeared to describe the claimant’s cardiovascular status.

The need to consider evidence in context also appears in our discussion of mental health treatment gaps in SSDI appeals. These are different evidentiary issues, but both call for examining what the record supports before drawing conclusions.

A brief hearing offers a limited view

The ALJ’s observations during a video hearing did not resolve the problem. Briefly seeing the claimant sit or stand did not clearly contradict her reported difficulty remaining in those positions for longer periods. Hearing observations may contribute to an evaluation, but they could not independently sustain the rejection of her testimony after the other reasons failed.

Applying Ninth Circuit law, the Central District of California required specific, clear, and convincing reasons under the circumstances presented. This was a district court decision, not a rule binding courts nationwide.

For claimants, the practical lesson is to describe daily activities accurately, including their duration, frequency, breaks, and limitations. If you are considering a federal court appeal, you can schedule a consultation with Feden Law Group to discuss your case.

Case: Debbie F.C. v. Bisignano, No. 8:25-cv-01621-SSC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201507 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2026). Judgment.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.