Stahovich v. Astrue
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
524 F. Supp. 2d 95 (2007)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Stahovich (plaintiff) applied for Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income, claiming he had been disabled since February 1, 2000, due to two ruptured discs and depression. Before becoming disabled, Stahovich had obtained an associate degree and worked as a dishwasher, utility worker, residential counselor, wastewater operator, retail clerk, landscaper, and gas-station attendant. However, Stahovich did not list gas-station attendant in his job history. Stahovich testified he worked the job for a couple of months a couple of different times, pumping gas and shuttling cash to and from the customer and the cashier. Stahovich did not testify when he worked the job. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Michael Astrue (defendant), denied Stahovich’s applications based on an administrative-law judge’s (ALJ) first conclusion that Stahovich was not disabled. Stahovich sought judicial review of that denial, and the ALJ’s first decision was remanded so that the ALJ could reassess Stahovich’s residual functional capacity and to obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert regarding the type of work Stahovich could perform given his impairments. Upon remand, the ALJ reached a conclusion that Stahovich was not disabled because he could perform his prior work as a gas-station attendant. The ALJ’s second decision became the commissioner’s final decision. Stahovich sought judicial review of the ALJ’s second decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Neiman, 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.