Legal Opinion

Haddock v. Apfel

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided July 13, 1999No. 98-7063PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

If a disability claimant shows that he can no longer perform any of his past jobs, he is disabled unless the administrative law judge (ALJ) finds that he can do some other kind of work. In this case, the ALJ found that claimant retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) only for sedentary work that would allow him to alternate sitting and standing and that was, at most, semi-skilled. In response to the ALJ’s hypothetical question including these restrictions, a vocational expert (VE) summarily identified four jobs claimant ostensibly could perform. The Dictionary of…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Glen W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
  5. Heckler v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jones v. ApfelCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
  2. Gorecki v. MassanariDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
  3. Bronson v. AstrueDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2008
  4. Godfrey v. ApfelDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API