From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Harden v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
979 F.2d 1082 (1992)
Facts
Gloria Harden (plaintiff) injured her back at work and filed applications for Social Security and workers’-compensation benefits. In each case, Harden alleged that her back injury rendered her disabled. The Social Security Administration initially denied Harden’s benefit award at every administrative stage, but upon judicial review and remand, Harden was awarded benefits. However, while Harden’s Social Security claim was pending, Harden was awarded workers’-compensation benefits in the amount of $189 per week; Harden also received a lump-sum payment in the amount of $20,000 for weeks that she was entitled to benefits but was unpaid. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) offset Harden’s Social Security benefits payments by an amount of $141.68 over 105 weeks, an amount and frequency derived by dividing the lump-sum payment by Harden’s weekly benefit amount and subtracting attorney’s fees owed and prorating those over the same period. The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (defendant), and Harden sought judicial review of the ALJ’s offset calculation. A United States district court affirmed the ALJ’s calculation, and Harden appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garza, J.)
What to do next…
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.
