Brock v. Apfel
Decision Date | 06 October 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 99-6039-CV-SJ-BC-SSA-ECF.,99-6039-CV-SJ-BC-SSA-ECF. |
Citation | 118 F.Supp.2d 974 |
Parties | Gerald W. BROCK [SSN: 487-66-6132], Plaintiff, v. Kenneth APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Roger Driskill, Liberty, MO, for plaintiff.
Jerry Short, Assistant United States Attorney, Kansas City, MO, for defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
Before the court is defendant's motion to alter or amend the order filed on September 12, 2000, reversing the decision of the commissioner and granting disability benefits. In support of his motion, defendant argues that the commissioner's burden at step five of the sequential analysis is only a burden of production, not a burden of proof. Defendant's position is without merit.
The United States Supreme Court in Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987), stated as follows:
The severity regulation does not change the settled allocation of burdens of proof in disability proceedings. It is true, as Yuckert notes, that the Secretary bears the burden of proof at step five, which determines whether the claimant is able to perform work available in the national economy.
(emphasis added).
The defendant raised this precise issue in multiple other cases across this circuit, five of which were addressed by Chief United States District Judge Mark Bennett in the Northern District of Iowa. See McPherson v. Apfel, 110 F.Supp.2d 1162 (N.D.Iowa 2000). Judge Bennett stated in part as follows:
The bone of contention in each case is the magistrate judge's characterization of the Commissioner's burden at step five of the disability analysis. However, the Commissioner does not contest the magistrate judge's conclusion in each case about the outcome of the disability analysis as a whole, even though the magistrate judge's conclusion, in each case, is contrary to the Commissioner's finding of no disability and denial of benefits. Thus, the Commissioner apparently seeks to remedy what he perceives to be a systemic flaw in the disability analysis, while conceding that his disability determination should be reversed in each of these cases.
Id. at 1163. In this case, defendant likewise contests the "burden of proof" issue but does not contest the decision, i.e., that the commissioner's decision was in error and that the plaintiff is entitled to disability benefits.
Judge Bennett goes on to state:
For the characterization of the Commissioner's burden as a burden of "production," the Commissioner relies on Young, 221 F.3d at 1069 n. 5, which in turn relies on Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279, 282 (8th Cir.1995) ....
Decisions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals describing the Commissioner's burden at step five of the disability determination process as one of "proof" are legion and include, to cite only some of the most recent ones, the following: [citations to 17 Eighth Circuit cases]. Decisions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals describing the burden as one of "production," on the other hand, are so rare that the court has unearthed none besides Young, 221 F.3d at 1070 n. 5, and the case upon which Young relies, Roth, 45 F.3d at 282....
Moreover, the Commissioner and the decision in Young both rely on the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119, for the correct statement of the requirements of step five, but the pertinent part of Yuckert states the following:
[T]he Secretary bears the burden of proof at step five, which determines whether the claimant is able to perform work available in the national economy. But the Secretary is required to bear this burden only if the sequential evaluation process proceeds to the fifth step.
Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 146 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. 2287 .... Thus, there can be no doubt that [the magistrate judge] correctly stated that, under precedent of this circuit and the Supreme Court, it is indeed "well settled" that the Commissioner's burden at step five of the disability determination process is a burden of "proof," not merely one of "production."
See also Burnside v. Apfel, 223 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.2000) (); Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir.2000) ().
The case relied on by defendant, Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir.2000), recites a conclusion that, if traced to its origins, is not supported even by the authority relied upon. Young states as follows:
[T]he burden of production shifts to the Commissioner to produce evidence of jobs available in the national economy that can be performed by a person with the claimant's RFC and vocational skills.... The ultimate burden of persuasion to prove disability, however, always remains with the claimant.
The only case cited by the Young court is Roth v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 279 (8th Cir. 1995). In Roth, the court stated as follows:
Roth bears the burden of proving disability. Although the ultimate burden of persuasion does not shift, the burden of production shifts.
The only case cited by the Roth court is Locher v. Sullivan, 968 F.2d 725, 727 (8th Cir.1992). The Locher case reads as follows:
The claimant bears the burden of proving disability. Having shown, however, that he is unable to perform his past relevant work,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berry v. Astrue
...activity in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2000); Brock v. Apfel, 118 F. Supp. 2d 974 (W.D. Mo. 2000). The Social Security Administration has promulgated detailed regulations setting out a sequential evaluation process to d......
-
Kinsey v. Astrue
...activity in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2000); Brock v. Apfel, 118 F. Supp. 2d 974 (W.D. Mo. 2000). The Social Security Administration has promulgated detailed regulations setting out a sequential evaluation process to d......
-
Huffaker v. Astrue
...activity in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir. 2000); Brock v. Apfel, 118 F. Supp. 2d 974 (W.D. Mo. 2000). The Social Security Administration has promulgated detailed regulations setting out a sequential evaluation process to d......
-
Lafferty v. Astrue
...activity in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform. Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 857 (8th Cir.2000); Brock v. Apfel, 118 F.Supp.2d 974 (W.D.Mo.2000). The Social Security Administration has promulgated detailed regulations setting out a sequential evaluation process to determ......
-
Case survey
...v. Schweiker , 683 F.2d 1338 (8th Cir. 1982), upon which these panel opinions and precedent is based.” Id. (7) In Brock v. Apfel , 118 F. Supp.2d 974, 975 (W.D. Mo. 2000), the Commissioner filed a motion to alter or amend an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner and granting disa......
-
Table of Cases
...F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999), § 604.12 Brockman v. Sullivan , 987 F.2d 1344, 1348 (8th Cir. 1993), §§ 312.2, 1601.1 Brock v. Apfel , 118 F. Supp.2d 974, 975 (W.D. Mo. 2000), § 107.1 Brock v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2012), 8th-12 Brock v. Chater , 84 F.3d 726, 728 (5th Cir......
-
Table of cases
...F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999), § 604.12 Brockman v. Sullivan , 987 F.2d 1344, 1348 (8th Cir. 1993), §§ 312.2, 1601.1 Brock v. Apfel , 118 F. Supp.2d 974, 975 (W.D. Mo. 2000), § 107.1 A-9 TABLE OF CASES Brock v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2012), 8th-12 Brock v. Chater , 84 F.3......
-
Sequential evaluation process
...v. Schweiker , 683 F.2d 1338 (8 th Cir. 1982), upon which these panel opinions and precedent is based.” Id. (7) In Brock v. Apfel , 118 F. Supp.2d 974, 975 (W.D. Mo. 2000), the Commissioner filed a motion to alter or amend an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner and granting dis......