Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Green-Younger v. Barnhart

335 F.3d 99 (2003)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...

Green-Younger v. Barnhart

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

335 F.3d 99 (2003)

Facts

Nina Green-Younger applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming she was disabled due to severe pain caused by her fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, chronic lower-back pain, and neuropathy associated with the back pain. Green-Younger submitted medical records from her treating physician of over three years to support her claim. The records detailed the physician’s unsuccessful treatment attempts, including referrals to specialists who confirmed Green-Younger’s diagnoses, and the physician’s conclusion that Green-Younger was disabled in accordance with Social Security regulations. The treating physician’s opinion was that Green-Younger’s impairments severely limited her ability to work because she could not stand or sit for more than four hours per day, for 30-minute intervals, with 60-minute breaks between intervals. After initial denial and upon reconsideration, an administrative-law judge (ALJ) decided that Green-Younger was not disabled, finding that she had the residual functional capacity to perform her prior work. A vocational expert testified that if Green-Younger’s impairments caused the limitations that she claimed, Green-Younger could not perform her prior work or any other work in the national economy. However, the ALJ found that Green-Younger’s evidence and testimony lacked credibility because two of the administration’s consulting physicians opined that Green-Younger could sit and stand longer than claimed because there was no evidence of motor-function deficits or significant arthritis. The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Jo Anne Barnhart (defendant). Green-Younger sought judicial review in a United States district court, where the commissioner’s decision was affirmed. Green-Younger appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Feinberg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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
  2. 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,400 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership