C. GRANT v. L. RICHARDSON
| Decision Date | 29 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 28902 Summary Calendar.,28902 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 445 F.2d 656 |
| Parties | Joseph C. GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Seagal V. Wheatley, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Kathryn H. Baldwin, Leonard Schaitman, Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
Fritz K. Knust, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and MORGAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Under the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed.2d 842, decided May 3, 1971, the conclusion of the District Court that the testimony of Dr. C. W. Williams, the orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. R. C. Hardy, the neurosurgeon, did not constitute substantial evidence was error. Therefore, the Secretary's determination, being supported by substantial evidence, must be affirmed, even if there was also substantial evidence which may have supported a finding in favor of the claimant Grant. Moreover, the resolution of any conflict in the evidence, including conflicting medical opinions, as in the case at hand, and the determination of questions of credibility of the witnesses are not for the court; such functions are solely within the province of the Secretary. Martin v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 793; Stillwell v. Cohen, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 574, 575-576.
The motion of the defendant, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, should be granted; and the motion of the plaintiff (claimant) for summary judgment should be denied.
Reversed with directions.
* Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freese v. Colvin
...duty, not the Court's, to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Grant v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 656, 656 (5th Cir. 1971).10 The Commissioner is also responsible for drawing inferences from the evidence, and those inferences are not to be overturned ......
-
Payne v. Kijakazi
...... resolve. Selders v. Sullivan , 914 F.2d 614, 617. (5 th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); Grant v. Richardson , 445 F.2d 656 (5 th Cir. 1971). (citation omitted). This court may not “reweigh the. evidence in the record, try ......
-
Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Lacina v. Commissioner, 2015 WL 1453364, at *2 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Grant v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 656 (5th Cir.1971)). IV. Analysis a. Whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff does not have a severe mental imp......
-
Russo v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
......Jan. 15,. 2019), report and recommendation adopted , No. 18-21029-CIV, 2019 WL 3216037 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2019). (citing Grant v. Richardson , 445 F.2d 656 (5th Cir. 1971)). A reviewing court's role is to determine that the. proper legal standards were applied and ......