Court Opinion

ID: 9474711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:06:31.874253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:17.174816
License: Public Domain

HOBBS, Chief District Judge
concurring specially:
This 1981 application for social security benefits has been before this court two *1466times. The first time the parties were sent back to the district court for a determination as to whether the case had been decided in accordance with Reeves v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 519 (11th Cir.1984). After appellant had made a Reeves proffer on remand, the district court found that the proffer did not constitute substantial evidence of a lesser ability to adapt to a new work environment. On this second appeal to this court, no judge believes that the case should be reversed on the basis of the Reeves factor.
The dissenting opinion, however, would again remand the case, this time for the AU to make an express finding as to whether he found that Mr. Hutchison’s disability met a listed impairment. I agree with Judge Hill that the AU by clear implication made the determination that the disability did not meet a listed impairment. I also agree with Judge Hill that there is substantial evidence to support this determination.
I am unwilling to send this case — now nearly five years old — back for an AU determination which I feel is certain to result in nothing more than further lengthy delay with the same result. Mr. Hutchison is presently fifty-eight years of age. It may be that were he to bring a new claim at this age, the same disabilities that led to his disqualification in 1982 — the date of his AU hearing — would now lead to his qualification for benefits.
I concur in the opinion of Judge HILL.