Opinion ID: 1372456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial Gainful Activity (Step One)

Text: The ALJ failed to confine his step-one analysis to the time period from September 16, 1996, to January 31, 1997. Step one requires the Commissioner to decide whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. [2] 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If so, the Commissioner will find that [the claimant is] not disabled. Id. Mueller was not working at all between September 16, 1996, and January 31, 1997. She quit substitute teaching after 1985 and did not resume until 1999. (Admin. R. at 73.) She quit teaching piano lessons after 1995 and did not resume until 2002.( Id. ) Nonetheless, the ALJ evaluated whether Mueller's work, performed well after her date last insured, constituted substantial gainful activity: The record reflects the claimant worked as a part-time substitute school teacher and self-employed piano instructor since the amended alleged onset date of September 16, 1996; however, the work attempts were part-time and seasonal in nature. Therefore, the undersigned finds the work activities did not constitute substantial gainful activity during the pertinent period in this case. ( Id. at 15.) Despite the ALJ's temporally flawed analysis, his ultimate conclusion  that Mueller was not engaged in substantial gainful activity  was correct. Thus, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's step-one determination. See Lowe, 226 F.3d at 971.