Johnson v. Weinberger, Civ. A. No. C-5437.
Decision Date | 24 July 1974 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-5437. |
Citation | 388 F. Supp. 628 |
Parties | Edna E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Caspar WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Edna E. Johnson, pro se.
James L. Treece, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for defendant.
This action was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1970) to obtain judicial review of a final administrative decision denying to the plaintiff a period of disability and an award of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) & 423 (1970).
On December 27, 1971, the plaintiff filed an Application for Disability Insurance Benefits. She described her disability as "arthritis (severe) with recurrent inflammation, swelling in major joints so ability to get about is limited and high blood pressure." The disability appears to have begun on April 13, 1971. A report concerning the plaintiff's claimed disability was made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 421 by the State Agency for Disability Determinations, and on May 31, 1972, the application was denied. The application was again denied following the plaintiff's request for reconsideration.
On April 20, 1973, a timely application having been made by the plaintiff, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing the plaintiff chose to present evidence without the assistance of counsel. On June 12, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge published his findings of fact and conclusions of law; he determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefits requested in her application. The plaintiff's subsequent request to the Appeals Council for review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge was denied. Consequently, the decision by the Administrative Law Judge became the final administrative determination of the plaintiff's claim.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) defines the scope of judicial review to which the plaintiff is entitled:
The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the same for a rehearing. The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . ..
The defendant has moved for summary judgment. Although we now have before us the entire record, consisting of the pleadings and a certified copy of the transcript of the administrative proceeding, summary judgment is not the proper vehicle for resolution of the issues. As recently pointed out by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a dispute concerning the presence or absence of substantial evidence in a record is itself a genuine issue of material fact, precluding an award of summary judgment. Nickol v. United States, 501 F.2d 1389 (10th Cir. 1974). Therefore the defendant's motion for summary judgment must be denied. Nevertheless, since all the evidence is now before us, the case is ripe for final disposition; accordingly, we now proceed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The pertinent definition of disability is found in various sections of the Social Security Act:
The testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge indicate that the plaintiff was born in 1911 in Minnesota. She graduated from high school and had opportunity school training in key-punch operation, typing, and business English. She was employed in Minnesota as a cook and egg candler from 1937 to 1952, at which time she moved to Denver. Following her move to Denver she continued as an egg candler until 1954. In 1954 she sustained a back injury which required her to remain unemployed until 1959. From 1960 to 1970 she worked for twelve different employers as a key-punch operator. On September 22, 1970, she was laid off for lack of available work. A number of subsequent attempts to find employment as a keypunch operator were unsuccessful.
On December 27, 1971, the plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and/or disability insurance benefits, claiming that she became unable to work on April 13, 1971. On September 23, 1971, she was admitted to Saint Joseph's Hospital in Denver as a result of severe pain which she was experiencing in her left leg and knee. She remained in the hospital until October 1, 1971.
The plaintiff lives by herself in an apartment. She does her own shopping, either by bus or by transportation provided by friends or relatives. She does her own cleaning, washing, and cooking.
The medical evidence presented at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge came from four sources: (1) a report from Dr. Robert L. Jardine; (2) a hospital report relating to the plaintiff's hospitalization...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberts v. Morton
...evidence in a record is itself a genuine issue of material fact, precluding an award of summary judgment." Johnson v. Weinberger, 388 F.Supp. 628, 629 (D.Colo.1974). See Nickol v. United States, However, when asked to review an administrative record to determine whether the decision therein......
-
Hamilton v. Secretary of Health & Human Services of U.S., 91-3160
...before us, the case is ripe for final disposition; accordingly, we now proceed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. 388 F.Supp. 628, 629 (D.Colo.1974); see also Morton, 481 F.Supp. at 914 n. 2 (" 'Ruling on the transcript and pleadings constitutes final disposition of the cause,......
-
Morton v. Califano
...Rules of Civil Procedure. * * *" Baker v. Richardson, D.C.Fla. (1971), 327 F.Supp. 349, 351 2, 3, n. 1; accord: Johnson v. Weinberger, D.C.Colo. (1974), 388 F.Supp. 628, 629 1-2; Torphy v. Weinberger, D.C.Wis. (1974), 384 F.Supp. 1117, 1119 1-3; Pippin v. Richardson, D.C.Fla. (1972), 349 F.......
-
Letz v. Weinberger, Civ. A. No. 74-A-909.
...contradictory evidence about controverted material facts. Nickol v. United States, 501 F.2d 1389 (10th Cir. 1974); Johnson v. Weinberger, 388 F. Supp. 628 (D.Colo.1974). Unlike the circumstances of those cases, there is here involved the testimony of only one witness, and the facts upon whi......