Harrah v. Richardson, 71-1155.

Decision Date02 July 1971
Docket NumberNo. 71-1155.,71-1155.
PartiesLinzie D. HARRAH, Appellee, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Michael H. Stein, Atty., Dept. of Justice (L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kathryn H. Baldwin and Thomas

J. Press, Attys., Dept. of Justice, on brief), for appellant.

James H. Coleman, Charleston, W. Va. (Coleman & Lantz, Charleston, W. Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before BRYAN, WINTER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

The Secretary appeals from the district court's holding that the unappealed administrative denial of claimant's four previous applications for social security disability benefits was not res judicata of a substantially identical fifth application. We reverse and direct that the Secretary's motion for summary judgment be granted.

The doctrine of administrative res judicata is firmly established as the law of this circuit even though the prior administrative determination adverse to the claimant was not put to the scrutiny of judicial review. Leviner v. Richardson, 443 F.2d 1338 (1971), and authorities collected therein. The only exceptions to application of the principle are where there is manifest error in the record of the prior administrative proceeding (Grose v. Cohen, 406 F.2d 823 (4 Cir. 1969); Easley v. Finch, 431 F. 2d 1351 (4 Cir. 1970)), or where, in support of a new application, new and material evidence is offered which is of sufficient weight that it may result in a different determination (Leviner v. Richardson, supra).

In this case the claimant filed applications with the Secretary in 1956, 1959, 1961, 1965 and 1967. In each he claimed disability from silicosis and arthritis. In his second and subsequent applications he also claimed disabling heart disease. Claimant requested and was granted a hearing with respect to his second application. It was established that claimant's insured status expired on June 30, 1958. While he was found to have had some silicosis and some arthritis prior to June 30, 1958, these were found not to have been so severe as to preclude him from performing substantial gainful activity prior to the expiration of his insured status. His disabling heart disease did not ensue until July 4, 1959, when he suffered a serious heart attack, but that was after his insured status had expired.

Our examination of the administrative record of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Ortego v. Weinberger
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 4, 1975
    ...see Lauritzen v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 561 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Smith, 482 F.2d 1120 (8th Cir. 1973); Harrah v. Richardson, 446 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1971); Grose v. Cohen,406 F.2d 823 (4th Cir. 1969), that the agency was clearly wrong. Given the records and other data available to t......
  • Bradley v. Carydale Enterprises
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 5, 1989
    ...review," it is now apparent that actual court review is not necessary; the opportunity for such review suffices. See Harrah v. Richardson, 446 F.2d 1, 2 (4th Cir.1971) ("The doctrine of administrative res judicata is firmly established as the law of this circuit even though the prior admini......
  • Salt Creek Freightways v. Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 7, 1979
    ...Association AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 370, 376, 463 F.2d 316, 322 (1972); Harrah v. Richardson, 4th Cir., 446 F.2d 1, 2 (1971); State v. District Court, 259 Minn. 228, 107 N.W.2d 307, 310 Although these authorities speak in terms of Res judicata, it might b......
  • OUBRE v. DIST. OF COLUMBIA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • August 26, 1993
    ...86 S.Ct. 1545, 1559-60, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966); William J. Davis, Inc. v. Young, 412 A.2d 1187, 1193-94 (D.C. 1980); Harrah v. Richardson, 446 F.2d 1, 2 (4th Cir. 1971); see also Borough of Lansdale, Pa. v. Federal Power Comm'n, 494 F.2d 1104, 1114 n. 45 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The doctrine applie......
  • 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