P was an Air Force training flight officer when he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. His condition deteriorated quickly and was advanced and progressive by the time he was age 51. He was awarded social security disability benefits beginning July 1960.
At that time his condition was progressed such that he had ataxis (loss of muscle coordination), dipolpia (seeing one object as two objects), partial paralysis of all four limbs, loss of hearing in both ears, diminished ability to formulate sentences, some slurring of speech, some difficulty in thinking, and some sensory defects. He became severely fatigued after walking just one block. He also suffered some incontinence.
Heroically, P underwent a six-week course of vocational training in investment counseling and worked 20 hours per week consulting with clients on mutual funds and other securities. His wife often acted as his secretary, performing such activities as typing and writing. He did not pay for her services. He often met with clients at his home since his mobility was seriously restricted. His wife often drove him places. He made net income from self-employment of no more than $800 per year, after deducting about $300 for business expenses.
It was held that P’s disability continued. His condition had not medically improved, and in fact had gotten worse since the time he was first awarded disability benefits. The only question was whether or not his work activities constituted “substantial gainful activity.” They did not.
This is because he was stretching himself to the limit to work just twenty hours per week. His work activity was not in a supervisory or managerial capacity but was a commissioned based sales and consulting job. His loss of hearing, poor motor control, and impaired verbal communications further limited his ability to deal with potential investors. Despite his best efforts at working half time, his commissioner were still limited to a net of $800 per year.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of P’s situation, it was held that P’s work did not constitute substantial gainful activity, and therefore his benefits continued.
See Social Security Ruling (SSR) 64-32.
This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.
