Myers v. Richardson
Citation | 471 F.2d 1265 |
Decision Date | 28 December 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1389.,72-1389. |
Parties | John G. MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Frank J. Neff, Barkan, Barkan & Neff, Columbus, Ohio, on brief for appellant.
Grayce Ruehlman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee; William W. Milligan, U. S. Atty., W. Robinson Watters, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, on brief.
Before EDWARDS and KENT, Circuit Judges, and GUBOW,* District Judge.
Appellant applied for disability benefits under the provisions of the Social Security Act, Title 42 U.S.C. § 423. He claimed that he became totally disabled on November 20, 1965, and that his disability was permanent in nature. His claim for disability was denied administratively at all levels, and he brought suit in the United States District Court under the provisions of Section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The District Court remanded the case to the Secretary for the taking of additional evidence. After consideration of the additional evidence, the Hearing Examiner granted benefits for the period from June, 1966, to May, 1967, after concluding that the appellant had been totally disabled from November 20, 1965, until March 10, 1967. The appellant appealed and the award of the Hearing Examiner was affirmed administratively. The decision was again reviewed by the United States District Court which entered judgment for the appellee. From that judgment this appeal was taken.
The issue presented is stated in the appellant's brief, as follows:
"When the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare resolves a conflict in the evidence between total disability and less than total disability in favor of a finding of total disability within a given period of eligibility, a further finding that disability terminated on a specific date, based upon that same medical evidence which specifically fails to indicate a fact of termination of disability, is not supported by substantial evidence, as required by 42 U.S.C.A. Section 405(g)."
Thus, in essence the only questions are whether the Secretary was required to take additional evidence as to the termination of the disability after having considered all the evidence as to the nature, extent and duration of the appellant's disability and whether, if not, there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Secretary.
Under the statute judicial review of decisions of the Secretary is very limited. As stated by this Court in Floyd v. Finch, 441 F.2d 73, 75 (1971):
or as stated at greater length in Lane v. Gardner, 374 F.2d 612, 616 (1967):
The Act itself does not provide for a closed period of benefits. However, we think it clear that such a closed period of benefits may be awarded. Title 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(2)(D), which provides:
"(D) A period of disability shall end with the close of whichever of the following months is the earlier: (i) the month preceding the month in which the individual attains age 65, or (ii) the second month following the month in which the disability ceases."
and 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(2)(E):
"(E) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (F), no application for a disability determination which is filed more than 12 months after the month prescribed by subparagraph (D) as the month in which the period of disability ends (determined without regard to subparagraph (B) and this subparagraph) shall be accepted as an application for purposes of this paragraph."
clearly demonstrate that the framers of the Act contemplated that some applications for benefits would be made which would result in an award of benefits after the claimant had recovered from his disability. Notwithstanding the provisions of Title 42 U.S.C. § 425 which makes provision for the suspension of benefits when the Secretary comes into possession of information that the disability has terminated it should be obvious that multiple hearings would be a waste of time and effort.
We, therefore, hold that the Secretary has the power to determine in a single hearing the issues of the fact of the claimant's disability, the extent of such disability, the duration of such disability and whether such disability has terminated.
The remaining issue is whether there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding of termination of the disability. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). It is the position of the appellant that when the Secretary rejects testimony to the effect that the claimant was never disabled that he must then necessarily reject the same evidence in determining whether or not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Picklesimer v. Colvin, 3:13-1457
...or decide questions of credibility. See, e.g., Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Myers v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1268 (6th Cir. 1972)). The Court must accept the ALJ's explicit findings and determination unless the record as a whole is without substantial evid......
-
Trenholme v. Colvin
...or decide questions of credibility. See, e.g., Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Myers v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1268 (6th Cir. 1972)). The Court must accept the ALJ's explicit findings and determination unless the record as a whole is without substantial evid......
-
Baskin v. Colvin
...or decide questions of credibility. See, e.g., Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Myersv. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1268 (6th Cir. 1972)). The Court must accept the ALJ's explicit findings and determination unless the record as a whole is without substantial evide......
-
Feliciano v. Colvin
...in evidence, or decide questions of credibility. See Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Myers v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1268 (6th Cir. 1972)). The Court must accept the ALJ's explicit findings and final determination unless the record as a whole is without subs......
-
Case survey
...evaluate their testimony.’” Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security , 245 F.3d 528, 536 (6th Cir. 2001), quoting Myers v. Richardson , 471 F.2d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1972). The court found that the ALJ could properly determine that the claimant’s subjective complaints were not credible in ......
-
Table of Cases
...116805, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 1997), § 1312.5 Myers v. Colvin , 721 F.3d 521 (8th Cir. July 18, 2013), 8th-13 Myers v. Richardson , 471 F.2d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1972), §§ 204.2, 204.7 Myers v. Sullivan , 916 F.2d 659 (11th Cir. 1990), § 205.16 Myer v. Callahan , 974 F. Supp. 578, 583 ......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...evaluate their testimony.’” Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security , 245 F.3d 528, 536 (6 th Cir. 2001), quoting Myers v. Richardson , 471 F.2d 1265, 1267 (6 th Cir. 1972). The court found that the ALJ could properly determine that the claim-ant’s subjective complaints were not credible ......
-
Table of cases
...116805, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 1997), § 1312.5 Myers v. Colvin , 721 F.3d 521 (8th Cir. July 18, 2013), 8th-13 Myers v. Richardson , 471 F.2d 1265, 1267 (6th Cir. 1972), §§ 204.2, 204.7 Myers v. Sullivan , 916 F.2d 659 (11th Cir. 1990), § 205.16 Myer v. Callahan , 974 F. Supp. 578, 583 ......