Hajek v. Shalala

213 Citing cases

  1. Reinhardt v. Berryhill

    4:16-CV-04009-RAL (D.S.D. Mar. 1, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Rather, Reinhardt's argument appears to be that it is per se error for the ALJ not to refer to SSR 12-2p, and that the ALJ insufficiently evaluated fibromyalgia when determining Reinhardt's RFC. See Doc. 14 at 32 (twice mentioning RFC in connection with the argument about failure to apply SSR 12-2p). Reinhardt argues, based on Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89 (8th Cir. 1994), that the ALJ's failure to consider and properly apply SSR 12-2p is an abuse of discretion. Doc. 14 at 31; see Hajek, 30 F.3d at 92. In Hajek, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded a denial of benefits because the ALJ had concluded that the claimant could perform his past relevant work as a janitor (a medium exertional requirement job) despite the fact that his walking limitations precluded him from medium exertional requirements as defined by SSR 83-10.

  2. Wigg v. Chater

    904 F. Supp. 949 (N.D. Iowa 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Frankl, 47 F.3d at 937 (citing McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir. 1982) (en banc); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f), 416.920(f)). See also Johnston, 42 F.3d at 451 (citing Turpin v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 165, 170 (8th Cir. 1987)); Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 93 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Evans v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 832, 835 (8th Cir. 1994)); Mitchell v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 1994); Smith, 31 F.3d at 717 (citing Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560, 564 (8th Cir. 1991); Hajek, 30 F.3d at 93 (citing Evans, 21 F.3d at 835); Walker v. Shalala, 993 F.2d 630, 632 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 841 (8th Cir. 1992)); Reed v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 812, 814 (8th Cir. 1993)); Edwards v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 809 F.2d 506, 507 (8th Cir. 1987); McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d at 1142. D. Review of the ALJ's Decision

  3. Alverio v. Chater

    902 F. Supp. 909 (N.D. Iowa 1995)   Cited 4 times

    Frankl, 47 F.3d at 937 (citing McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir. 1982) (en banc); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f), 416.920(f)). See also Johnston, 42 F.3d at 451 (citing Turpin v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 165, 170 (8th Cir. 1987)); Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 93 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Evans v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 832, 835 (8th Cir. 1994)); Mitchell v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 1994); Smith, 31 F.3d at 717 (citing Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560, 564 (8th Cir. 1991); Hajek, 30 F.3d at 93 (citing Evans, 21 F.3d at 835); Walker v. Shalala, 993 F.2d 630, 632 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Robinson v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 836, 841 (8th Cir. 1992)); Reed v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 812, 814 (8th Cir. 1993)); Edwards v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 809 F.2d 506, 507 (8th Cir. 1987); McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d at 1142. The ALJ determined that there were a "significant number of jobs in the national economy which [Alverio] could perform."

  4. Martise v. Astrue

    641 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1,524 times
    Holding that a vocational expert's answer to a hypothetical question that includes the claimant's limitations determined by the ALJ "constitute substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's denial of benefits" (quoting Lacroix v. Barnhart , 465 F.3d 881, 889 (8th Cir. 2006) )

    According to Martise, the ALJ did not sufficiently discuss or analyze the combined effect of these impairments. A review of the record reveals that Martise's "conclusory statement is unfounded," Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994), because, as the district court found, the ALJ "fully summarized all of plaintiffs medical records and separately discussed each of plaintiffs alleged impairments." The ALJ expressly found that Martise "does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed impairments. . . .

  5. Roy H. v. Saul

    547 F. Supp. 3d 864 (D. Neb. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    The glossary defines terms like "light work," "residual functional capacity," and others; these definitions are binding on the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 422.406(b)(1) ("Social Security Rulings ... are binding on all components of the Administration"); Hajek v. Shalala , 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing Carter v. Sullivan , 909 F.2d 1201, 1202 (8th Cir. 1990) ) ("Secretary's failure to consider definitions in SSR 83–10 constituted plain abuse of discretion"); see alsoHepp v. Astrue , 511 F.3d 798, 807 (8th Cir. 2008) (relying on the definition of "medium work" in SSR 83-10 to affirm the ALJ's RFC determination). SSR 83-10 defines "range of work" as "[o]ccupations existing at an exertional level."

  6. Woods v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

    Civil No. 1:20-cv-01011 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2021)

    These statements are sufficient under Eighth Circuit precedent to establish that the ALJ properly considered the combined effect of a claimant's impairments. See Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that statements such as "the evidence as a whole does not show that the claimant's symptoms . . . preclude his past work as a janitor" and "[t]he claimant's impairments do not prevent him from performing janitorial work . . ." sufficiently establish that the ALJ properly considered the combined effects of the plaintiff's impairments). Thus, pursuant to the Eighth Circuit's holding in Hajek, this Court finds the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's impairments in combination.

  7. Crowder v. Saul

    CIVIL NO. 2:18-CV-2211 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 11, 2019)

    Such language demonstrates the ALJ considered the combined effect of Plaintiff's impairments. Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994). D. Evaluation of the Listed Impairments:

  8. Michael R. v. Saul

    Case No. 18-CV-241 (NEB/KMM) (D. Minn. Sep. 6, 2019)

    [ECF No. 8-2 at 16.] In Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89 (8th Cir. 1994), the Eighth Circuit rejected a similarly conclusory argument. In that case—just as here—the ALJ used "impairments" in the plural and stated that the plaintiff did not have an "impairment or combination of impairments" that meet the severity requirements. 30 F.3d at 92.

  9. Salazar v. Berryhill

    Civil No. 6:16-cv-06101 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 22, 2018)

    These statements are sufficient under Eighth Circuit precedent to establish that the ALJ properly considered the combined effect of a claimant's impairments. See Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that statements such as "the evidence as a whole does not show that the claimant's symptoms . . . preclude his past work as a janitor" and "[t]he claimant's impairments do not prevent him from performing janitorial work . . ." sufficiently establish that the ALJ properly considered the combined effects of the plaintiff's impairments).

  10. Kennel v. Berryhill

    Civil No. 6:16-cv-06107 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 9, 2018)

    These statements are sufficient under Eighth Circuit precedent to establish that the ALJ properly considered the combined effect of a claimant's impairments. See Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that statements such as "the evidence as a whole does not show that the claimant's symptoms . . . preclude his past work as a janitor" and "[t]he claimant's impairments do not prevent him from performing janitorial work . . ." sufficiently establish that the ALJ properly considered the combined effects of the plaintiff's impairments).