Opinion ID: 2765321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Activities of Daily Living

Text: Ms. Perez-Leeds contends that the ALJ’s finding that she has only moderate restrictions in activities of daily living is not supported by the record and is premised on incorrect legal standards. She states that “[t]he ALJ cited [her] ability to drive her children to school, shop, cook, and perform household chores as the sole reason for finding that [she] was only moderately limited in this domain.” Aplt. Br. at 10. She -6- then asserts that “the record shows that [her] ability to perform those tasks was not unlimited as the ALJ suggests,” and goes on to recite evidence indicating that she had difficulties with household chores, cooking, shopping, and organizing her home and budget. Id. (emphasis added). The ALJ, however, did not suggest that Ms. Perez-Leeds’s ability to perform activities of daily living was “unlimited.” Contrary to Ms. Perez-Leeds’s argument that the ALJ mischaracterized the extent of her daily activities, the ALJ specifically noted that she “experiences difficulties while performing daily activities.” Admin. R. at 14. The ALJ’s conclusion that she has moderate restrictions in activities of daily living reflects his consideration of her stated difficulties with some of these activities. Ms. Perez-Leeds also contends that the ALJ “ignored the report from Dr. Joseph Sadek which summarized [her] performance on a battery of psychological tests.” Aplt. Br. at 11. But the ALJ did not ignore Dr. Sadek’s report. The ALJ discussed the report as part of the evidence in support of his RFC determination, and concluded that Dr. Sadek’s opinion deserved less weight because it overstated her limitations as compared to her demonstrated ability to perform activities of daily living, including driving her children to and from school and being able to use a computer to access the internet and exchange e-mail. Ms. Perez-Leeds next argues that “[r]esults from testing and clinical interview performed by Dr. Simpson also indicated marked limitations in [her] ability to perform activities of daily living.” Aplt. Br. at 11-12. But in Dr. Simpson’s “Mental -7- Status Consultative Examination,” he did not specifically assess Ms. Perez-Leeds’s ability to perform activities of daily living or reach a conclusion on that issue. See Admin. R. at 314-19. Ms. Perez-Leeds further asserts that “Dr. Simpson noted that [she] had cognitive impairments that caused difficulty multitasking and preparing and completing tasks in the home environment.” Aplt. Br. at 12. This assertion gives the impression that Dr. Simpson reached this conclusion based on his own independent evaluation; but that is not an accurate characterization of the record. Dr. Simpson’s summary of Ms. Perez-Leeds’s recitation of her history states that she reported “having cognitive delays that included processing information, and having difficulty multitasking.” Admin. R. at 314. Ms. Perez-Leeds also told him that “[b]oth at home and in the work environment it takes her a long time to prepare and complete tasks.” Id. at 314-15. These statements reflect Ms. Perez-Leeds’s assessment of her abilities, not Dr. Simpson’s assessment.1 The ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical evidence or in concluding that Ms. Perez-Leeds has only moderate restrictions in activities of daily living. 1 The ALJ found Ms. Perez-Leeds’s statements concerning the limiting effects of her symptoms credible to the extent they were consistent with his RFC assessment. His RFC found her capable of performing a full range of work at all exertional levels, subject to certain nonexertional limitations. Ms. Perez-Leeds has not challenged the ALJ’s assessment of her credibility. -8-