Harmon v. Apfel
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
168 F.3d 289 (1999)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Shirley Harmon (plaintiff) applied for supplemental security income, claiming she was disabled due to back pain that required her to sit or lie down most of the time. An administrative-law judge’s (ALJ) conclusion that Harmon was not disabled became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Kenneth Apfel (defendant). The ALJ reached his conclusion after finding that Harmon had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work that allowed her to alternate between standing and sitting every 30 minutes. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ listed six jobs that would be suitable with Harmon’s limitations and found that there were about 900,000 jobs nationally and 700 within a 75-mile radius of Harmon’s home. Harmon sought judicial review of the ALJ’s decision, not contesting the RFC determination nor the vocational expert’s testimony. Harmon alleged the ALJ should have considered the over-an-hour distance she would have to travel to the metropolitan area and found her disabled because applicable jobs do not exist that do not require her to sit and drive longer than her limitations allow. The district court affirmed the denial, and Harmon appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Merritt, 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. 46,400 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.
