From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Kelley v. Apfel
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
185 F.3d 1211 (1999)
Facts
Stephen A. Kelley (plaintiff) applied for Social Security disability benefits and was denied, based on an administrative-law judge’s (ALJ) finding that he had a residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform full-time sedentary work existing in large numbers in the national economy. The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Kenneth Apfel (defendant). Kelley sought judicial review of the denial, and a district court affirmed it. Kelley appealed, arguing that the ALJ incorrectly assumed that part-time work could constitute substantial gainful activity. The commissioner’s initial brief never set forth his position that part-time work could constitute substantial gainful activity (SGA), precluding a finding of disability at step one of the administration’s five-step sequential process for determining disability but not at step five. Instead, the brief only rebutted Kelley’s argument by stating part-time work could preclude a disability finding without making the distinction between its preclusion at step one versus step five. An initial opinion was rendered based on the court of appeal’s false assumption that the ALJ based his decision on the claimant’s ability to perform part-time work given his RFC. The commissioner moved for clarification.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
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.
