Daniel v. Gardner, 24527.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24527.,24527. |
| Parties | Bernice P. DANIEL, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James L. Shores, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., Clarence F. Rhea, Gadsden, Ala., Paul Johnston, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., John R. Thomas, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before RIVES, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Secretary that appellant is not entitled to a period of disability nor to disability insurance benefits provided by sections 216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 416 (i), 423. Our review is limited to a determination of whether the Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); Alsobrooks v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1966, 357 F.2d 110, 111.
For some ten years appellant worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company but left in 1954 because of ill health. On March 20, 1964, appellant applied for disability insurance benefits alleging that her disability began on June 30, 1954. It is undisputed that she last met the earnings requirement of the Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 423(c)) on June 30, 1959. The hearing examiner, at the conclusion of the hearing, found that appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Act and subsequently the Appeals Council denied appellant's request for a review.
A careful examination of the record discloses that there were only two doctors who treated appellant during the critical period prior to June 30, 1959. Dr. Kay, a psychiatrist, filed a report with the hearing examiner that he saw appellant in May, 1957, and that "she had a good deal of anxiety and some phobic reactions." He further reported that she had improved greatly when he saw her in 1964 but added "working is definitely anxiety-producing, and she has found, on repeated efforts, that she cannot work for any length of time."
The evidence of Dr. Lumpkin, appellant's personal physician, is conflicting. In his report to the hearing examiner he said "This patient was first actively treated by me for hypertension in 1961 * * * and it is my opinion she would have been unemployable since that time." Significantly, however, the Appeals Council added to the record a letter from Dr. Lumpkin reciting in detail his treatment of appellant. This letter states that he began actively treating appellant for "severe nervousness" in 1951 and in July of 1954 he requested Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company to give her a three months' leave of absence because of this condition. Dr. Lumpkin's report concludes that "She was permanently and totally disabled at that time upon her retirement from Goodyear and was unable to seek gainful employment after her medical retirement from Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Gadsden, Alabama."
It is quite apparent that Dr. Lumpkin's reference to the year 1961 in his first statement to the hearing examiner was a mistake which was corrected as being the year 1951 in his later statement to the Appeals Council.
It is manifest that the hearing examiner made his findings based upon the erroneous date in Dr. Lumpkin's first statement — disability accruing in 1961 — and necessarily therefore found that she was not entitled to receive disability insurance benefits "because it is essential that a person become disabled at a time he or she meets the special earnings requirements of the Social Security Act" in this case June 30, 1959. The Appeals Council, however, had the benefit of Dr. Lumpkin's subsequent report that appellant had been permanently and totally disabled since 1954. This and Dr. Kay's corroborating findings of appellant's disability in 1957 stood undisputed in the record before the Appeals Council. The non-medical evidence strongly supports the medical conclusions reached by these doctors. Appellant therefore carried the burden of establishing a medically determinable physical or mental impairment as of June 30, 1959. Section 216(i) (1) (A) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(i) (1) (A); Section 223(c) (2) (A) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S. C.A. § 423(c) (2) (A).
There was, however, no evidence from which it could be determined whether the severity of the appellant's impairment came within the definition of "disability" as used in the Act, i. e., "inability to engage in any substantial gainful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 06-14602.
...incorrectly transcribed date in a doctor's letter, and the doctor filed new evidence with the correct date in the Appeals Council. 390 F.2d 32 (5th Cir.1968). The Appeals Council considered the evidence but denied review. Id. at 33. We faulted the Appeals Council for not correcting the admi......
-
Hayes v. Colvin
...Council to determine that an application for benefits required further consideration by the Commissioner." (citing Daniel v. Gardner, 390 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1968))); Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1263 (quoting Bowen to the same effect of an inadequate evaluation by the AC and rejecting the Commissione......
-
Rivers v. Schweiker
...(2nd Cir. 1982) cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 2956, 73 L.Ed.2d ---- (1982).13 Rivers relies upon cases, e.g., Daniel v. Gardner, 390 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1968), adjudicated prior to adoption of the guidelines and cases in which the administrative hearing took place prior to adoption ......
-
Zaldivar v. Apfel, Civ.A.1:98-CV2017TWT.
...precedent, including Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980); Mann v. Gardner, 380 F.2d 182, 187 (5th Cir.1967); Daniel v. Gardner, 390 F.2d 32 (5th Cir.1968); and Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629 (11th Cir.1984). Judge Guin then concluded that "[a]ll of the above cases suggest that it ......