Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
220 F.3d 112 (2000)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Ethel Burnett (plaintiff) worked as a deli clerk from 1977 until 1991, when Burnett injured her knee and back. Burnett applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) (defendant) for disability benefits, claiming an inability to work since May 1991 due to her injuries. Burnett’s application was denied. Burnett appealed, providing supporting medical evidence from treating doctors and testimony from Burnett, her husband, and her neighbor regarding the severity of Burnett’s impairments. Burnett indicated that as a deli clerk, she performed “medium” work, walking and standing for long shifts, lifting 50 pounds, and constantly bending. On reconsideration, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) affirmed the denial of benefits, concluding that Burnett’s impairment did not equal a listed impairment under the Social Security regulation. The ALJ further determined that Burnett had a residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform “light” work, of which Burnett’s prior deli employment consisted. The ALJ rejected Burnett’s testimony, finding that the testimony was not supported by objective medical evidence and concluding that Burnett likely could not have lifted 50 pounds at a time because of her small stature. The appeals council and the district court affirmed. Burnett appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.