From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Young v. Barnhart
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
362 F.3d 995 (2004)
Facts
James Young (plaintiff) was denied Social Security disability benefits after an administrative-law judge (ALJ) found that Young had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform work other than his past relevant work, which existed in significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ considered evidence from no fewer than eight psychological and medical professionals who either examined or evaluated Young when making his RFC assessment. In concluding that Young had the RFC to perform simple, routine, repetitive, low-stress work with limited contact with others, the ALJ gave less weight to the opinion of the physician who had been last ordered to examine Young on the administration’s behalf. The ALJ specifically found that the testimony was inconsistent with the other medical experts’ testimonies and that Young had an incentive to manipulate the exam, being that it was for disability-determination purposes. The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Jo Anne Barnhart (defendant). Young sought judicial review in a United States district court, arguing, among other grounds, that the ALJ improperly rejected the medical-expert testimony of his latest examining physician. The district court upheld the commissioner’s denial. Young appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rovner, 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.
