Mandrell v. Weinberger, 74--1398
| Decision Date | 04 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1398,74--1398 |
| Citation | 511 F.2d 1102 |
| Parties | Daniel P. MANDRELL, Appellant, v. Caspar W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of the United States, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John N. Goodman, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Leslie L. Conner, and Conner, Little & Conner, Oklahoma City, Okl., with him on the brief), for appellant.
Larry R. O'Neal, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., William R. Burkett, U.S. Atty., and William Kanter, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before HILL, SETH and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges.
This case is before us for review of a decision of the district court which found (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)) that substantial evidence in the administrative record supported the finding of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare that Daniel P. Mandrell is not disabled to an extent which would entitle him to disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.
Mr. Mandrell filed an application for Social Security disability insurance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423(d)(2)(A) on March 10, 1970, alleging that he had been disabled due to emphysema, thrombophlebitis, and heart trouble since February 2, 1969. The request was denied, reconsidered, and the denial affirmed. He then requested and obtained a hearing during which he testified and made numerous medical reports part of the record. The Administrative Law Judge made findings and concluded that the claimant was not entitled to benefits as he was able to engage in substantial gainful work, and thus not disabled, as of the critical date.
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge became the final decision of the Secretary, and the claimant thereafter brought an action in the district court for review of the decision. The Secretary moved for summary judgment on the basis of the administrative record. The trial judge granted summary judgment and filed an explanatory memorandum.
Claimant on this appeal raises three points: (1) The district court erred in holding that the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence; (2) the court did not give proper consideration to the fact that appellant-claimant receives one hundred per cent disability benefits from the Veterans' Administration; (3) the court did not properly construe the applicable portions of the Social Security Act.
We note first that the district court's decision preceded our opinion in Nickol v. United States, 501 F.2d 1389 (10th Cir.), which discusses judgments in cases of this type. In any event, the opinion of the district court here summarizes the facts relied on in the administrative record by the trial court to support the decision as to substantial evidence.
The claimant has been classified by the Veterans' Administration as totally disabled and receives benefits from them of $130.00 per month. Concerning this the district court said: 'But that is not significant herein because the requirements and standards mandated by statutes and regulations of the two agencies are not the same.' Mandrell suggests on appeal that the correct statement of the law is that, while the Veterans' Administration's finding of disability is not controlling on the Social Security Administration, it is a factor entitled to considerable weight....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richter v. Chater
...of HEW, 587 F.2d 857, 862 (7th Cir.1978), Falcon v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 827, 831 (11th Cir.1984) (great weight)). In Mandrell v. Weinberger, 511 F.2d 1102, 1103 (10th Cir.1975), the Tenth Circuit made clear the VA's finding of disability was not controlling on the Social Security Administrati......
-
Gathright v. Shalala
...Determinations of disability made by other government agencies are entitled to consideration by the Secretary. Mandrell v. Weinberger, 511 F.2d 1102, 1103 (10th Cir.1975). The amount of weight to be attached to another government agency's disability determination is left to the Secretary to......
-
Hamilton v. Secretary of Health & Human Services of U.S., 91-3160
...of Agriculture milk order). We have indicated that the rationale of Nickol applies in social security cases, see Mandrell v. Weinberger, 511 F.2d 1102, 1103 (10th Cir.1975), as did Judge Arraj in Johnson and other district courts in this circuit, see, e.g., Gonzales v. Califano, 452 F.Supp.......
-
Gresham v. Califano
...have so held. Williams v. Califano, 590 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1979); Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23 (2nd Cir. 1979); Mandrell v. Weinberger, 511 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1975); Combs v. Gardner, 382 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1967); Hoffman v. Gardner, 369 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1966); Rodriguez v. Celebrez......
-
Table of Cases
...Supp.2d 296, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), § 101.2 Manago v. Barnhart, 321 F. Supp.2d 559, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), § 1209.3 Mandrell v. Weinberger , 511 F.2d 1102, 1103 (10th Cir. 1975), § 1207.1 Mandziej v. Chater , 944 F. Supp. 121, 129 (D.N.H. 1996), §§ 105.1, 203.14, 204.2, 204.9, 205.5, 205.10, 21......
-
Issue topics
...are not binding on the Commissioner. Musgrave v. Sullivan , 966 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1992), citing Mandrell v. Weinberger , 511 F.2d 1102, 1103 (10th Cir. 1975) (noting that, although entitled to consideration, a finding of disability by the Veterans Administration is not controlling)......
-
Table of cases
...Supp.2d 296, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), § 101.2 Manago v. Barnhart, 321 F. Supp.2d 559, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), § 1209.3 Mandrell v. Weinberger , 511 F.2d 1102, 1103 (10th Cir. 1975), § 1207.1 Mandziej v. Chater , 944 F. Supp. 121, 129 (D.N.H. 1996), §§ 105.1, 203.14, 204.2, 204.9, 205.5, 205.10, 21......
-
Issue Topics
...are not binding on the Commissioner. Musgrave v. Sullivan , 966 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1992), citing Mandrell v. Weinberger , 511 F.2d 1102, 1103 (10th Cir. 1975) (noting that, although entitled to consideration, a finding of disability by the Veterans Administration is not controlling)......