From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Angel v. Barnhart
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
329 F.3d 1208 (2003)
Sara Angel (plaintiff) was denied Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income based on an administrative-law judge’s (ALJ) finding that Angel was not disabled. The ALJ made the determination at step four of the administration’s five-step sequential process for determining disability after finding the following: at step one, that Angel was not engaging in substantial gainful activity; at step two, that she has severe back and bladder impairments; and at step three, that her impairments did not meet or equal the administration’s listing for vertebrogenic disorder, despite Angel’s treating osteopath’s testimony that she met or equaled the listing because of her spinal injuries combined with her bladder dysfunction and lack of tenacity or reflex. The ALJ then found, at step four, that Angel had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a wide range of light work with the following restrictions: lifting no more than 10 pounds on a frequent basis, with a maximum of 20 pounds; standing or walking for no more than two hours at a time, or for no longer than six hours in an eight-hour day; only occasional stooping; and a need to self-catheterize her bladder for 10 to 15 minutes every two to two-and-one-half hours. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ concluded that Angel was not disabled because she could perform her prior work. The ALJ rejected Angel’s testimony that the pain resulting from her back problems prevented her from lifting anything more than a gallon of milk and from standing, sitting, or walking for more than 20 minutes at a time. Angel’s testimony was corroborated by her treating osteopath. The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Jo Anne Barnhart. Angel sought judicial review, and a United States district court affirmed the commissioner’s denial. Angel appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kelly, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.