RICHARD WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Richard Walker appealed the denial of his application for benefits under Florida's medically needy program. The court reversed, finding that Walker established a prima facie case of disability and that the Department failed to meet its burden of showing he could perform available work.
Walker established a prima facie case of disability by showing uncontradicted evidence that he was unemployed, had severe impairments, and could no longer perform his previous occupation. The Department failed to meet its burden of proving Walker could perform his former occupation or identify any available alternate work, therefore Walker is entitled to benefits.
[1] A hearing officer's application of the five-step sequential evaluation process for disability benefits must be sufficiently detailed to enable appellate review.
[2] Florida's Medically Needy Program utilizes Supplemental Security Income (SSI) criteria for evaluating disability claims.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant having thus established a prima facie case of entitlement, the burden shifted to The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to show that appellant was either capable of performing his former occupation or alternate work available in the national economy.”
Establishes the legal standard that once the applicant proves a prima facie disability case, the burden shifts to the Department to prove the applicant can work.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker applied for medically needy program benefits under Florida law. He was not currently employed and had various impairments that his doctor testi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Application for Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant appeals from the denial of his application for benefits under the “medically needy program” authorized by Section 409.266(7)(k), Florida Statutes (1987). We reverse.
The facts of this case are set forth in our earlier opinion, Walker v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 533 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (Walker I). In that case, we vacated the hearing officer’s denial of appellant’s application and remanded to enable the hearing officer to articulate her findings regarding appellant’s impairments under the five-step sequential evaluation set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).1 Walker I, 533 So. 2d at 839-40. The hearing officer found on re mand that none of appellant’s various impairments, either considered singularly or in combination, was “severe” and that appellant’s residual functional capacity was not significantly reduced. Therefore, the hearing officer concluded that appellant was not disabled and denied his application. We disagree.
Appellant has made a sufficient showing of disability under the sequential test. His uncontradicted evidence showed that he was not currently employed, that his impairments were “severe” within the meaning of the Walker I definition,2 and although none of appellant’s impairments was of the degree necessary for a finding of disability under the CFR tables,3 appellant’s doctor indicated that appellant could no longer do the tasks necessary to perform his previous occupation.
Appellant having thus established a pri-ma facie case of entitlement, the burden shifted to The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to show that appellant was either capable of performing his former occupation or alternate work available in the national economy. Hall v. Harris, 658 F. 2d 260, 264 (4th Cir.1981). HRS failed to produce any evidence that appellant could perform his former occupation and failed to identify any job available in the national economy that appellant could perform. Thus, HRS failed to sustain its burden and appellant is entitled to the benefits requested.
The appealed order is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED with directions that appellant’s application for benefits be granted.
JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ„ concur. . See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (1989).
. See Walker I, 533 So. 2d at 837 (citing with approval McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F. 2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir.1986)).
. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart D, Appendix 1 (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fricker v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 606 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…quential test, the burden then shifts to HRS to show that the claimant was either capable of performing his or her former occupation or alternate work available in the national economy. See Walker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 554 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (Walker II), citing Hall v. Harris, 658 F. 2d 260, 264 (4th Cir.1981). Turning to the instant case, it is implicit in the hearing officer’s analysis [*449] that he found Mrs. Fricker was not presently employed and that her impai…
-
Carosharo v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 598 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…the absence of the hearing officer’s detailed evaluation of the criteria and questions under the cited regulations, we are unable to provide adequate appellate review of that decision. Cf. Walker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 554 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (Walker II). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Edlin v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 633 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…is or her age, education and past work experience, in order to evaluate whether there are other jobs existing in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Fricker v. HRS, 606 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Fricker and Walker v. HRS, 554 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Walker II”) indicate that at this point, the burden shifts to HRS “to show appellant was either capable of performing his former occupation or alternate work available in the national economy.” Id. at 1203. Although it is uncl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDANIEL v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Alva M. Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260 (4th Cir. 1981)
- Walker v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 533 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)