Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

administrative lawcredibility

Related Cases

Miles-Conley Co. v. C.I.R., 173 F.2d 958, 49-1 USTC P 9245, 37 A.F.T.R. 1245
View Case »
Woolsey v. United States, 794 Fed.Appx. 469
View Case »
Sleiman v. C.I.R., 187 F.3d 1352, 84 A.F.T.R.2d 99-5987, 99-2 USTC P 50,828, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1273
View Case »
Nu-Look Design, Inc. v. C.I.R., 356 F.3d 290, 93 A.F.T.R.2d 2004-608, 2004-1 USTC P 50,138, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 17,147
View Case »
Kresser v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 54 T.C. 1621
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Allison v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 108 F.3d 1376 (Table), 1997 WL 103369

Facts

Steven L. Allison was injured at work in June 1987 when a drum fell on him, leading to persistent back pain that caused him to quit his job in December 1987. He underwent five surgeries on his spine between December 1988 and February 1991, which provided some improvement but did not eliminate his pain. Additionally, he experienced psychological issues, including depression, and filed for disability benefits in February 1992, which were denied by the Ohio state agency and later by an administrative law judge (ALJ).

The claimant, Steven L. Allison, was injured at work on June 1, 1987, when a 55 gallon drum fell on him.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether Steven L. Allison was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the period during which he underwent multiple surgeries and whether he was disabled for a continuous period of at least twelve months.

The main legal issue was whether Steven L. Allison was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the period during which he underwent multiple surgeries and whether he was disabled for a continuous period of at least twelve months.

Rule

Disability benefits cannot be awarded absent an impairment that lasts for a continuous period of at least 12 months, as per 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The court also applied a two-part test for assessing subjective complaints of disabling pain.

Disability benefits cannot be awarded absent an impairment that lasts for a continuous period of at least 12 months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

Analysis

The court analyzed the ALJ's findings, noting that while Mr. Allison had undergone multiple surgeries and experienced pain, the objective medical evidence indicated a healed spinal fusion. The ALJ found that Mr. Allison's subjective complaints of pain were not fully supported by the medical evidence, and his daily activities suggested he was capable of performing light work. The court concluded that the ALJ's assessment of credibility regarding Mr. Allison's pain was entitled to deference.

The court analyzed the ALJ's findings, noting that while Mr. Allison had undergone multiple surgeries and experienced pain, the objective medical evidence indicated a healed spinal fusion.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of benefits for the period after Mr. Allison's recovery but vacated the decision regarding the period during his surgeries, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine if he was disabled during that time.

The court affirmed the denial of benefits for the period after Mr. Allison's recovery but vacated the decision regarding the period during his surgeries, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine if he was disabled during that time.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the court upheld the denial of benefits for the period following Mr. Allison's recovery, finding substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision.

The prevailing party was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the court upheld the denial of benefits for the period following Mr. Allison's recovery.

You must be