Cohen v. Perales, No. 26238.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation416 F.2d 1250
PartiesWilbur J. COHEN, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant, v. Pedro PERALES, Appellee.
Decision Date10 October 1969
Docket NumberNo. 26238.

416 F.2d 1250 (1969)

Wilbur J. COHEN, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant,
v.
Pedro PERALES, Appellee.

No. 26238.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

October 10, 1969.


Ted Butler, Asst. U. S. Atty., Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Michael C. Farrar, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Michael B. Hunter, Richard Tinsman, Anthony J. Ferro, San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Lonnie W. Duke, Arthur L. Schiff, San Antonio, Tex., for amicus curiae.

Before COLEMAN and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges, and SKELTON, Judge of the Court of Claims.*

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM:

Attorneys representing the administrative Law Section of the American Bar Association have filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in this case in which they urge the court to modify its opinion so as to hold that the Administrative Procedure Act applies to and governs hearings on disability claims under social security legislation, and especially with respect to the right to cross-examination.1 We have carefully considered this brief, but have concluded that our decision in our original opinion is correct in this regard.

The Secretary of HEW has filed a Petition for Rehearing and a Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc. He has apparently misconstrued our opinion because the main thrust of his Petition for Rehearing is to the effect that under our decision uncorroborated hearsay evidence could

416 F.2d 1251
never be substantial evidence that would support a decision of a hearing examiner adverse to a claimant in a social security disability case. Because of this erroneous interpretation of our opinion, the Secretary raises the spectre of a large increase in the number of cases of this kind that would have to be litigated in Court because of our opinion. He intimates that our decision would require medical witnesses of the HEW as well as those of the claimant to always testify in person at the hearing. All of these positions are unfounded

Our opinion holds, and we reaffirm, that mere uncorroborated hearsay evidence as to the physical condition of a claimant, standing alone and without more, in a social security disability case tried before a hearing examiner, as in our case, is not substantial evidence that will support a decision of the examiner adverse to the claimant, if the claimant objects to the hearsay evidence and if the hearsay evidence is directly contradicted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Richardson v. Perales, No. 108
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1971
    ...by the claimant and his medical witness; and procedure followed under Act does not violate due process requirements. 412 F.2d 44 and 416 F.2d 1250, reversed and remanded. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Richard Tinsman, San Antonio, Tex., for respondent. Page 390 Mr. J......
  • Brands v. Sheldon Community School, No. C 87-4015.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • February 18, 1987
    ...(5th Cir.1976). Absent direct contradictory evidence, hearsay could be relied upon. Broward County, 525 F.2d at 907; Cohen v. Perales, 416 F.2d 1250, 1251 (5th Cir.1969), rev'd on other grounds, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). These standards apply......
  • Daviess County Hosp. v. Bowen, No. 85-2407
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 20, 1987
    ...Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 547, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1226, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). See also Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44, 48-49, on rehearing, 416 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir.1969), rev'd on other grounds, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). As the Supreme Court observ......
  • Jacobowitz v. United States, No. 134-68.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • July 15, 1970
    ...F.Supp. 240 (W.D.Pa.1958); United States v. Krumsiek, 111 F.2d 74, 78 (1st Cir. 1940); Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44, rehearing denied, 416 F.2d 1250 (5 Cir. 1969); 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 1016 (1964); NLRB v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 202 F.2d 671, 673 (9 Cir. 1953), and Some cases have appl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Richardson v. Perales, No. 108
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1971
    ...by the claimant and his medical witness; and procedure followed under Act does not violate due process requirements. 412 F.2d 44 and 416 F.2d 1250, reversed and remanded. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Richard Tinsman, San Antonio, Tex., for respondent. Page 390 Mr. J......
  • Brands v. Sheldon Community School, No. C 87-4015.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • February 18, 1987
    ...(5th Cir.1976). Absent direct contradictory evidence, hearsay could be relied upon. Broward County, 525 F.2d at 907; Cohen v. Perales, 416 F.2d 1250, 1251 (5th Cir.1969), rev'd on other grounds, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). These standards apply......
  • Daviess County Hosp. v. Bowen, No. 85-2407
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • January 20, 1987
    ...Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 547, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 1226, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). See also Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44, 48-49, on rehearing, 416 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir.1969), rev'd on other grounds, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). As the Supreme Court observ......
  • Jacobowitz v. United States, No. 134-68.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • July 15, 1970
    ...F.Supp. 240 (W.D.Pa.1958); United States v. Krumsiek, 111 F.2d 74, 78 (1st Cir. 1940); Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44, rehearing denied, 416 F.2d 1250 (5 Cir. 1969); 32A C.J.S. Evidence § 1016 (1964); NLRB v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 202 F.2d 671, 673 (9 Cir. 1953), and Some cases have appl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT