October Term 2003 · Docket 02-763

Can a claimant be disabled if they can do other work but not their previous job?

The dispute centers on whether a person qualifies for disability benefits when they cannot perform their past job but can perform other existing work.

Official caption
Barnhart v. Thomas
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Lamken argued that the Commissioner has long construed the program to require two conditions for disability.

    He stated that a claimant must be unable to do their previous work to qualify.

    Mr. Alter argued that the Commissioner is acting against its own theme of providing remedies for disabled individuals.

    He asserted that Congress intended to separate the analysis of previous work from other work.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the legal standard for determining disability under the Social Security program. It asks how courts must weigh a claimant's ability to perform previous work versus other work.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 14, 2003.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The Commissioner seeks a ruling that denies benefits if the claimant can do other work.

The claimant seeks a ruling that grants benefits if she cannot do her previous job.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The Commissioner argues that disability requires an inability to do both previous and other work.

The claimant argues that Congress intended to separate the analysis of previous work from other work.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

How must courts distinguish between the ability to do previous work and other work?

Does the statutory language require a specific separation between these two steps?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the threshold for receiving federal disability benefits. It determines how many Americans can access financial support when they lose their ability to work. The outcome shapes the scope of the social safety net for workers with impairments.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON