From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Shepherd v. Apfel
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
184 F.3d 1196 (1999)
Facts
Dwayne Shepherd (plaintiff) was granted disability insurance benefits because of injuries he sustained from a motorcycle accident. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Kenneth Apfel (defendant), approved benefits for the closed period from December 8, 1991, through December 31, 1992. Shepherd was denied a request for reconsideration of the closed period and requested a hearing before an administrative-law judge (ALJ) for a determination of disability beyond December 31, 1992. The ALJ affirmed the commissioner’s decision, implicitly finding that there had been medical improvement in Shepherd’s condition and that he was not disabled after December 31, 1992. The only evidence on record that showed medical improvement in Shepherd’s condition was a July 7, 1993, consultative examination that showed Shepherd had regained full range of motion in most extremities and he had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work. The appeals council declined to review the ALJ’s decision. Shepherd filed a complaint in federal district court, and the district court also affirmed the commissioner’s decision but concluded there was no requirement for a medical-improvement test because benefits were granted for a closed period. Shepherd appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lucero, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 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.
