Moncrief v. Gardner
Decision Date | 11 February 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 22265.,22265. |
Citation | 357 F.2d 651 |
Parties | Dorothy MONCRIEF, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
George S. Brown, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Morton Hollander, Martin Jacobs, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Sherman L. Cohn, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Max Wild, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before MARIS,* RIVES and BELL, Circuit Judges.
The district court in a memorandum opinion affirmed the decision of the Secretary that appellant was not disabled within the meaning of sections 216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C.A. 416(i) and 423. After a careful review of all of the evidence and exhibits, we are satisfied that the Secretary failed to apply correct legal standards in evaluating the evidence, and also failed adequately to develop the vocational evidence.
Appellant claimed that her disability was due to "terrible back pain."1 The medical evidence demonstrated that she suffered pain from an osteoarthritic condition of the back, variously described in the medical reports as "fairly extensive," "moderately advanced," and "quite severe." She was born in 1915 and finished the fourth grade in school. Her work experience had been primarily limited to packing automobile parts at a plant in Chicago. She stopped work in October 1961. She and her husband were unable to continue living in Chicago on his salary alone, so they returned to their home in Alabama where they could live more cheaply.
We quote from the Hearing Examiner's decision:
The Examiner apparently confused the reports of Dr. Meyer and Dr. Clayton. It was Dr. Clayton who reported that claimant "cannot perform any consistent gainful work." On her application for review of the Examiner's decision, the claimant submitted a medical report of Dr. E. H. Edwards, President of the Board of Governors of the Leeds, Alabama, Hospital, as follows:
Each of the other five doctors who examined the claimant found the osteoarthritis of the spine but did not express an opinion as to whether it was disabling. The question of disability is not to be resolved by the doctors but by the Secretary.2 Indeed, the Examiner recognized that when he called attention to section 404.1526 of Social Security Regulations No. 4. Nonetheless, he apparently gave considerable weight to his finding that, "Only one of the examining physicians has indicated that the claimant is unable to work."
Of more significance is the Examiner's reliance upon Judge Learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bohms v. Gardner
...F.2d 334 (6 Cir. 1966); and (d) when it felt that an improper standard may have been applied by the hearing examiner, Moncrief v. Gardner, 357 F.2d 651, 652 (5 Cir. 1966). We necessarily assume that on remand the Secretary will process this case expeditiously. It has been a long time since ......
-
Gyurko v. Harris
...Adams v. Weinberger, 548 F.2d 239, 243 (8th Cir. 1977); Griffis v. Weinberger, 509 F.2d 837, 838-39 (9th Cir. 1975); Moncrief v. Gardner, 357 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1966); Roberts v. Califano, 439 F.Supp. 188, 192 B. The Inadequacy of the ALJ's Findings of Fact The ALJ's ultimate finding of fac......
-
Tauber v. Barnhart
...Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 702 (11th Cir.1988). Moreover, the application of a wrong legal standard is grounds for remand. See Moncrief v. Gardner, 357 F.2d 651 (5th Cir.1966).3 II. Entitlement to A claimant is entitled to receive disability benefits when she is unable to "engage in any substanti......
-
Bonilla v. Richardson, SA-71-CA-64.
...reasonable proximity to applicant's place of residence. See Jenkins v. Gardner, 430 F.2d 243, 246 (6th Cir. 1970); Moncrief v. Gardner, 357 F.2d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1966). Congress eliminated this judicial rule in 1968 by allowing the Secretary to show only that some job exists in the nation......