Broz v. Heckler, s. 81-7140
| Decision Date | 25 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | 81-7336,Nos. 81-7140,81-7370 and 81-7466,81-7143,s. 81-7140 |
| Citation | 711 F.2d 957 |
| Parties | John BROZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, a Department of the United States Government, Defendant-Appellant. Richard D. HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant. Corrine LITTLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant. Thomas O. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellant. Fred SOESBE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Thomas H. Figures, E.T. Rolison, Jr., Ginny S. Granade, Asst. U.S. Attys., Mobile, Ala., Ann Buxton Sobol, Federal Programs Branch, Robert S. Greenspan, Nicholas S. Zeppos, Dept. of Justice, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Washington, D.C., for Heckler.
Robert S. Edington, Joseph E. Carr, IV, Legal Services Corp. of Alabama, Mobile, Ala., for Broz.
Steven Emens, Alabama Legal Services, Tuscaloosa, Ala., for Holmes.
Michael J. Salmon, Gulf Shores, Ala., for Little.
Daniel L. McCleave, Mobile, Ala., for Jones.
Nettles, Cox & Barker, Kenneth O. Simon, Mobile, Ala., for Soesbe.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and MERRITT *, Circuit Judges.
In Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982), we upheld the validity of the Secretary's grid regulations with respect to three of the four factors on which they rely: physical ability, education, and work experience. With respect to the age factor, however, we held the regulations arbitrary and invalid. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated this court's judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Heckler v. Campbell, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1952, 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983). --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2421, 76 L.Ed.2d ---- (1983).
In Campbell the Supreme Court had held that the Secretary may rely on the grid regulations "in appropriate cases." --- U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 1959. In a footnote the Court explicitly distinguished Broz, stating that Campbell did not decide the validity of the regulations with respect to age. --- U.S. at ---- n. 8, 103 S.Ct. at 1956 n. 8. Beyond this the precise scope of the Court's holding and what remains for this court to decide is a matter of interpretation. The Court did not single out the other three factors when assessing the validity of the regulations. Because the Court did not differentiate among the three remaining factors, its opinion can be read to validate the regulations with respect to all factors except age. A narrower interpretation is also possible. The Social Security claimant in Campbell appears to have challenged only the Secretary's determination that a significant number of jobs in the national economy existed for persons with her physical characteristics. Reading its opinion in light of the specific challenge before it, the Court can be interpreted to have upheld the regulations only with respect to the physical ability factor.
Even construing the Court's opinion narrowly to validate only the physical ability factor, the Court's decision in Campbell does not undermine our previous holding. The principles we used to analyze the validity of the grid regulations are substantially identical to those employed by the Court in Campbell. Like the Court in Campbell, we divided the Secretary's task into two basic aspects. The Secretary must first determine the claimant's individual capabilities and then determine whether a substantial number of jobs exist in the national economy suitable for a person with the claimant's characteristics. --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 103 S.Ct. at 1957-58; 677 F.2d at 1359. Consistent with the Court in Campbell, we held that while the statute properly requires the Secretary to determine a claimant's individual capabilities through case-by-case adjudication, the Secretary may rely on regulations promulgated through rulemaking in determining the types of jobs available in the national market. --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 103 S.Ct. at 1957-58; 677 F.2d at 1359. 1
While Campbell lends strong support to the principles of analysis we employed, it said nothing to call into question our application of those principles. We accordingly reaffirm our previous holding that "for the three factors of residual functional capacity, education, and work experience, ... [the regulations properly] remove from adjudication only 'the kinds and numbers of jobs that exist in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rease v. Barnhart, No. 1:04-CV-3239-JMF.
...v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir.1985); Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 1351, 1361 (11th Cir.1982), adhered to sub nom. Broz v. Heckler, 711 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1983). When a claimant has both exertional and non exertional limitations that affect his ability to work, the ALJ is required to ma......
-
Manuel v. Berryhill
...(11th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) (citing Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 1351, 1361 (11th Cir. 1982), adhered to sub nom. Broz v. Heckler, 711 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1983)); see also Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1229 (11th Cir. 1999); Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072, 1077 (11th Cir. 1996); Martin......
-
Frazier v. Sullivan
...action in March 1983, and in March 1984 the court remanded the case to the Secretary for further proceedings in light of Broz v. Heckler, 711 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1983), which required individualized consideration of a claimant's age.1 In September 1984, the Secretary ruled that Frazier was n......
-
Justiniano v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 6:11-cv-1576-Orl-GJK
...gainful work in the national economy." Broz v. Schweiker, 677 F.2d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir. 1982), adhered to sub nom. Broz v. Heckler, 711 F.2d 957 (11th Cir. 1983). Thus, if a claimant has only exertional limitations - limitations in the ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, and pu......