Tackett v. Apfel
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
180 F.3d 1094 (1999)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Richard Tackett (plaintiff) had knee problems. In September 1991, Tackett fell while at work and thereafter was unable to continue working as a machinist. In 1994, Tackett took a job in a hardware store but had to quit a month later because of his knees. Tackett applied for Social Security disability benefits, asserting that he had been disabled since September 1991. The commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration, Kenneth Apfel (commissioner) (defendant), denied Tackett’s application. Tackett then requested a hearing before an administrative-law judge (ALJ). Tackett’s physicians and the ALJ’s medical experts agreed that Tackett could perform some sedentary work but needed to be able to change positions and walk every half hour. The ALJ determined that Tackett became disabled when he turned 50 on February 7, 1995, but was not disabled before that, finding that Tackett could have worked eight-hour shifts with breaks every two hours. The ALJ did not call a vocational expert to testify at Tackett’s hearing and based his determination solely on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, commonly known as the grids. The grids used several factors, including age, education, and work experience, to assess a claimant’s ability to find work. An appeals council declined Tackett’s request for review, and Tackett appealed to the district court, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Tackett appealed again, arguing that he was entitled to benefits for the period between September 1991 and his fiftieth birthday.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.