Prewitt v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 20 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24522.,24522. |
| Citation | 389 F.2d 993 |
| Parties | Ell PREWITT, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James L. Shores, Jr., Paul Johnston, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Macon L. Weaver, U. S. Atty., John R. Thomas, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before RIVES, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
This is a companion case to Daniel v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 32, decided this day. Here, however, the Secretary's decision was bottomed upon an incorrect legal principle that to be "medically determinable" the impairment must be established by objective medical, clinical or laboratory evidence. In rejecting this test we have said:
But the statute does not require that disability or its cause be "substantiated objectively." Of course, it must be "by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment." But modern medicine is neither so scientific nor so helpless today that it either does, or must, evaluate only objective factors.
Hayes v. Celebrezze, 5 Cir., 1963, 311 F. 2d 648; accord, Ross v. Gardner, 6 Cir. 1966, 365 F.2d 554; Bramlett v. Ribicoff, 4 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 858.
As we pointed out in Daniel, the disability provisions of the Social Security Act have been amended by Section 158 (b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967, 81 Stat. 821. Disability under the Act must therefore now be determined in accordance with provisions of that statute and not in accordance with the test of disability that we enunciated in Gardner v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 77; Bridges v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 86 and their progeny.
It will therefore be necessary for the Secretary to reconsider the medical evidence in the light of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fields v. Harris
...its existence is unsupported by objective medical evidence." Simmons v. Harris, 602 F.2d 1233, 1236 (5th Cir. 1979); Prewitt v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1968). Although the ALJ implied that the episodes occurred less frequently than the claimant alleged ("He related to Dr. Jan sic Pe......
-
Williams v. Harris
...equally true that pain alone can be disabling, even where its existence is unsupported by objective medical evidence. Prewitt v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 993, 994 (5th Cir. 1968); Hayes v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 648, 651-52 (5th Cir. 1963). Where the severity of a claimant's pain and fatigue are una......
-
Farmer v. Weinberger
...1973). Such pain does not require substantation by clinical findings. Walston v. Gardner, 381 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1967); Prewitt v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1968). However, the finder of fact may reject the claimant's unsupported assertions of pain, if he finds them not credible. East......
-
Mitchell v. Weinberger, Civ. A. No. T-5489.
...only relevant evidence is evidence as to the disabling effect of the physical impairments upon the particular claimant. (Prewitt v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1968); Whitt v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 906 (6th Cir. The vocational expert who testified did make the general statement that plainti......