Haddock v. Apfel
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
196 F.3d 1084 (1999)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Robert Haddock (plaintiff) applied for Social Security disability benefits. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) concluded that Haddock was not disabled at step five of the five-step sequential process the administration uses to determine disability. At step four, the ALJ found that Haddock did not have the residual functional capacity (RFC) to return to his prior skilled-heavy or unskilled-medium jobs. However, at step five the ALJ found that Haddock had the RFC to perform sedentary, semi-skilled work that allowed him to alternate sitting and standing. The ALJ concluded, based on vocational expert testimony, that Haddock was not disabled because many thousands of jobs existed in the regional and national economies that Haddock could perform. However, the expert did not provide any sources for his testimony nor were any sources elicited. The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Kenneth Apfel (defendant). Haddock appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ebel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
