Lawrence v. Heckler

Eleventh Circuit

Lawrence v. Heckler

739 F.2d 567, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19398, 6 Soc. Serv. Rev. 96

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 1984

DocketNo. 83-7280

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 739 F.2d 567 (Lawrence v. Heckler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 567, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19398, 6 Soc. Serv. Rev. 96 (11th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence appealed the district court’s affirmance of the Secretary’s termination of disability insurance benefits. We find the Secretary did not apply the proper legal standards and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The SSA determined that claimant was disabled in 1970. 2 Rec. at 61-62. The agency re-evaluated- Lawrence’s condition in 1971 and found that he was still disabled. Id. at 77-78. SSA did not reconsider claimant’s disability status for ten years. However, in 1981 the agency re-evaluated Lawrence’s condition, determined that he no longer was disabled, and terminated benefits. Id. at 89-90. On reconsideration, SSA concluded that claimant was no longer disabled.

Claimant requested and received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Both claimant and his wife testified. The [568]*568AU, applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 (1983) (“the grids”), determined that claimant was not disabled and denied benefits. The Appeals Council denied review. The district court affirmed the Secretary’s finding of no disability.

In Simpson v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 966, 969 (11th Cir.1982), this court held there could be no termination of disability benefits unless there was substantial evidence of improvement to the point of no disability. This court has subsequently determined that a comparison of the original medical evidence and the new medical evidence is necessary to make a finding of improvement. Vaughn v. Heckler, 727 F.2d 1040, 1043 (11th Cir.1984). The AU in this case considered only the current medical evidence of Lawrence’s disability. We therefore reverse and remand for application of the proper legal standard.

In Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982), vacated and remanded sub nom. Heckler v. Broz, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2421, 77 L.Ed.2d 1311, adhered to, 711 F.2d 957, modified, 721 F.2d 1297 (11th Cir.1983), we held the grids invalid to the extent they treated the age/ability to adapt factor as a legislative rather than adjudicative fact. Broz, 677 F.2d at 1360. We explained in Reeves v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 519 (11th Cir.1984) how the Secretary could use the age grids in establishing claimant’s ability to adapt. The determination we described in Reeves has not been made in this case. The record indicates that the AU applied the grids mechanistically. On remand to the Secretary, Lawrence must be given the opportunity to offer evidence on his inability to adapt.¹ In the absence of such evidence the AU’s use of the age grids would be dispositive of the issue.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence appealed the district court’s affirmance of the Secretary’s termination of disability insurance benefits. We find the Secretary did not apply the proper legal standards and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The SSA determined that claimant was disabled in 1970. 2 Rec. at 61-62. The agency re-evaluated- Lawrence’s condition in 1971 and found that he was still disabled. Id. at 77-78. SSA did not reconsider claimant’s disability status for ten years. However, in 1981 the agency re-evaluated Lawrence’s condition, determined that he no longer was disabled, and terminated benefits. Id. at 89-90. On reconsideration, SSA concluded that claimant was no longer disabled.

Claimant requested and received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Both claimant and his wife testified. The [568]*568AU, applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2 (1983) (“the grids”), determined that claimant was not disabled and denied benefits. The Appeals Council denied review. The district court affirmed the Secretary’s finding of no disability.

In Simpson v. Schweiker, 691 F.2d 966, 969 (11th Cir.1982), this court held there could be no termination of disability benefits unless there was substantial evidence of improvement to the point of no disability. This court has subsequently determined that a comparison of the original medical evidence and the new medical evidence is necessary to make a finding of improvement. Vaughn v. Heckler, 727 F.2d 1040, 1043 (11th Cir.1984). The AU in this case considered only the current medical evidence of Lawrence’s disability. We therefore reverse and remand for application of the proper legal standard.

In Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982), vacated and remanded sub nom. Heckler v. Broz, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2421, 77 L.Ed.2d 1311, adhered to, 711 F.2d 957, modified, 721 F.2d 1297 (11th Cir.1983), we held the grids invalid to the extent they treated the age/ability to adapt factor as a legislative rather than adjudicative fact. Broz, 677 F.2d at 1360. We explained in Reeves v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 519 (11th Cir.1984) how the Secretary could use the age grids in establishing claimant’s ability to adapt. The determination we described in Reeves has not been made in this case. The record indicates that the AU applied the grids mechanistically. On remand to the Secretary, Lawrence must be given the opportunity to offer evidence on his inability to adapt.¹ In the absence of such evidence the AU’s use of the age grids would be dispositive of the issue.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 F.2d 567, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19398, 6 Soc. Serv. Rev. 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-heckler-ca11-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack