Randall v. Flemming

• Decision Date: 08 February 1961
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3803.
• Citation: 192 F. Supp. 111
• Parties: Paul C. RANDALL, Plaintiff, v. Arthur S. FLEMMING, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, United States of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

192 F. Supp. 111

Paul C. RANDALL, Plaintiff, v. Arthur S. FLEMMING, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, United States of America, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 3803.

United States District Court W. D. Michigan, S. D.

February 8, 1961.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. M. Neath, Jr., Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff.

Wendell A. Miles, U. S. Atty., John F. Rooney, Asst. U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendant.

STARR, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff brings this action in pursuance of 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) to review the final decision of the defendant denying his claim for a period of disability and for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.

On July 10, 1957, the plaintiff filed the required application for disability insurance benefits, which was denied by the defendant January 21, 1958. On March 28, 1958, the plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of his claim and submitted additional evidence in support thereof. After reconsideration of the claim and of the additional evidence submitted, the defendant on July 10, 1958, again denied the plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. On July 16, 1958, the plaintiff filed a request for a hearing before a referee of the Social Security Administration. A hearing was had on June 9, 1959, and on July 31, 1959, the referee filed his opinion denying the plaintiff's application. On September 30, 1959, the plaintiff filed a request for review of the referee's decision by the defendant's Appeals Council, and on November 4, 1959, the council denied the plaintiff's request for review on the ground that it would result in no advantage to him. For the purpose of review in this court the decision of the Appeals Council was a final decision. See Pirone v. Flemming, D.C., 183 F.Supp. 739, 740; Carqueville v. Folsom, D.C., 170 F.Supp. 777, 779, affirmed 7 Cir., 263 F.2d 875; Jacobson v. Folsom, D.C., 158 F.Supp. 281, 284. See also 20 CFR § 403.710(e).

The evidence presented before the referee may be briefly summarized as follows: The plaintiff was born February 15, 1903, and has the equivalent of an eighth-grade education. He was employed as a motion-picture projectionist and a theater-equipment salesman for about 24 years. Subsequently he did general factory work on various types of machines, and worked as a factory security guard and plant patrolman for short periods of time. In September, 1954, he was laid off from his work as a night patrolman at Peerless Production Company, which was his last regular job, because of excessive absences due to asthmatic attacks. Thereafter he received unemployment insurance benefits of $35 weekly from the Michigan Employment Security Commission for a period of 28 weeks. After his job with Peerless Production was terminated in 1954, plaintiff did some light hauling, using a truck which he had purchased. Although he was barely earning a living, he continued this work until he was hospitalized in the Gratiot community hospital in June of 1956 for approximately eight days as the result of an asthmatic attack. Subsequent to his release from the hospital he secured employment painting a barn but because of exposure to the paint was again placed in the hospital for five days during September of 1956. Since that time the plaintiff has been unemployed although he has tried to secure work. He is presently registered with the Michigan Employment Security Commission, but he has never been sent out to apply for a job. He has applied for plant-protection work on several occasions but claims he has never been hired because of his physical impairment. He has been informed by personnel officials that he would be required to pass a physical examination and that because of his physical condition it would serve no purpose for him to take such an examination. The plaintiff has sought to earn some money by attempting to repair television sets in his home but claims that he has been unable to complete the work because of his physical condition.

The plaintiff's condition is approximately the same as it was at the time his employment was terminated at Peerless Production in 1954. His primary complaints are tiredness and violent coughing spells, which occur several times a day and which cause shortness of breath. The medication which has been prescribed relieves his symptoms only temporarily. He is also unable to do any amount of lifting because of a back condition dating from 1945. Plaintiff and his wife presently live in a two-room apartment in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and receive welfare benefits. His wife is crippled and for that reason is unable to perform most of the homemaking tasks. The plaintiff customarily does the cooking, shopping, and other housework.

Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) provides in part:

"Any individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Secretary may allow. Such action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business."

In his complaint filed in this court January 4, 1960, plaintiff alleged that the defendant's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to law. The defendant filed answer and a certified copy of the transcript of the record March 18, 1960. In his answer the defendant contends that his findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought.

On August 15, 1960, the defendant filed a motion for a summary judgment in his favor on the ground that his findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are therefore conclusive as a matter of law. This motion was heard November 21, 1960, and ably argued by counsel for the parties. Section 405(g), supra, further provides:

"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 cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive."

The term "substantial evidence" used in the Social Security Act is also used in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S.C.A. § 1009(e)(B)(5). In discussing that act in Gooding v. Willard, 2 Cir., 209 F.2d 913, 916, the court said:

"Where, on the record considered as a whole in the light of Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456, there is substantial evidence to support the administrative findings of fact they are to be accepted and given effect by the courts. As is pointed out in the opinion in the last mentioned case, `substantial evidence' means more than evidence which, considered by itself alone, would be sufficiently persuasive to induce the trier of fact to give it the credence and weight essential to support findings. It must have those characteristics to such an extent that in the setting made by the entire record the trier may reasonably find in accordance with it after giving due consideration to whatever else is shown both in opposition or in accord. Judicial review has been extended by the Administrative Procedure Act to embrace adequate exploration of the record as a whole to enable the reviewing court to arrive at its own judgment in determining that."

It is clear that the court's review in the present case must be at least as broad as that provided by the Administrative Procedure Act. See Julian v. Folsom, D.C., 160 F.Supp. 747, 750. In Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U. S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126, the Supreme Court said:

"Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

See also Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U. S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; Carqueville v. Folsom, D.C., 170 F.Supp. 777, 780, affirmed 7 Cir., 263 F.2d 875; Aaron v. Fleming, D.C., 168 F.Supp. 291, 294; Julian v. Folsom, D.C., 160 F.Supp. 747, 750.

Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) also provides that any finding of fact by the Secretary, which is supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, and therefore it should not be overturned upon review. The proceeding in this court is not a trial de novo and is limited to consideration of the pleadings, the transcript of the proceedings, and the findings of fact. See Rhoads v. Folsom, 7 Cir., 252 F.2d 377, 380; Folsom v. O'Neal, 10 Cir., 250 F.2d 946, 947; Dean v. Flemming, D.C., 180 F.Supp. 553, 555; Chesney v. Flemming, D.C., 180 F.Supp. 437, 439; Jacobson v. Folsom, D.C., 158 F.Supp. 281, 285; Fuller v. Folsom, D.C., 155 F.Supp. 348, 349. The defendant's inferences of fact drawn from the evidence are also conclusive if there is substantial basis to support them. See Folsom v. O'Neal, supra, 250 F.2d at page 947; Fuller v. Folsom, supra, 155 F. Supp. at page 349; Spencer v. Flemming, D.C., 188 F.Supp. 517, 518.

However, the defendant's conclusions of law are not binding upon this court, although they may be considered as persuasive. See Haxton v. Flemming, D.C., 183 F.Supp. 2, 4; Blevins v. Fleming, D.C., 180 F.Supp. 287, 289; O'Brien v. Flemming, D.C., 178 F.Supp. 387, 389; Dunn v. Folsom, D.C., 166 F.Supp. 44, 45; Jacobson v. Folsom, D.C., 158 F.Supp. 281, 285; Bostick v. Folsom, D.C., 157 F.Supp. 108, 110; Fuller v. Folsom, D.C., 155 F.Supp. 348, 349. Furthermore, in reviewing the defendant's findings of fact and decision, the court must not abdicate its conventional judicial function. See Universal Camera Corp. v....