Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hackett v. Barnhart

395 F.3d 1168 (2005)

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

Hackett v. Barnhart

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

395 F.3d 1168 (2005)

Facts

Hackett (plaintiff) was denied Social Security disability benefits following a hearing before an administrative-law judge (ALJ). The ALJ concluded that Hackett was not disabled because she had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform two jobs, which were identified by a vocational expert (VE) who testified at the hearing. Before the VE testified, the ALJ had found that Hackett’s RFC limited her to working jobs that allowed her to avoid direct contact with the general public and only required that she perform simple and repetitive tasks. The VE testified, according to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), that the jobs that he identified for Hackett were fairly solitary, only requiring indirect contact with the public via phone and level-three reasoning, requiring an ability to follow written, oral, or diagrammatic instructions and deal with problems with several concrete variables. The VE admitted that Hackett’s RFC did not directly correspond with the job descriptions provided in the DOT; however, he did not provide any explanation for the discrepancies. The ALJ’s denial became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Jo Anne Barnhart (defendant). Hackett sought judicial review of the denial in a United States district court. The district court ruled against the commissioner only on the ground that the ALJ failed to reconcile conflicts between the VE’s testimony and the DOT. Barnhart appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hartz, 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