Rials v. Ribicoff
Decision Date | 17 July 1962 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1183. |
Parties | Edward E. RIALS, Plaintiff, v. Abraham A. RIBICOFF, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
J. Albert Jones, Paducah, Ky., Joseph J. Grace, Paducah, Ky., for plaintiff.
Wm. E. Scent, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for defendant.
This action was brought under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in which the Appeals Council refused to review a decision of the hearing examiner holding the plaintiff is not entitled to a period of disability under Section 216(i) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(i), nor to disability insurance benefits under Section 223, 42 U.S.C.A. § 423.
The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. 42 U.S. C.A. § 405(g). Moreover, the reviewing authority of this Court is limited since it may not substitute its findings for those of the hearing examiner which are supported by substantial evidence. Dean v. Flemming, DC Ky., 180 F.Supp. 553; Ferenz v. Folsom, 3 Cir., 237 F.2d 46. There is no dispute between the parties as to these points.
Disability is defined in 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(i) as "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration."
Each of the parties to this action has filed a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the question to be determined by the Court is whether the transcript of the record contains substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Act.
Plaintiff's condition has been diagnosed by his doctors as osteomyelitis of the right femur. October 26, 1956, he filed an application to establish disability because of this condition and on the same date he also filed an application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff alleged in the applications that he had been disabled from February, 1956. The Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance determined that he was not under a disability, stating:
Another application seeking a period of disability and disability insurance benefits was filed on July 27, 1959. In that application, as in the previous one, plaintiff alleged disability from February, 1956 due to osteomyelitis. In denying the application, the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance said:
Upon plaintiff's request, his second application was reconsidered and he was notified of the Bureau's disallowance on January 29, 1960. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a request for a hearing, stating:
May 24, 1960, plaintiff appeared before a hearing examiner at Paducah, Kentucky. In addition to plaintiff's testimony, eleven medical reports representing the finding and opinions of six doctors who had examined plaintiff were introduced at the hearing. All of the doctors diagnosed his condition as osteomyelitis and reported that they considered him unable to perform work of manual type. Four of the doctors stated that they advised plaintiff not to work after examining him on the following dates: Dr. T. T. Brackin, Jr., January 28, 1957; Dr. John T. O'Neill, January 30, 1957; Dr. Benjamin F. Bradford, February 22, 1957, and Dr. Holmes G. Sargent, July 27, 1959. Dr. Donald C. Haugh examined plaintiff on September 12, 1959, and reported: "The leg is very painful and he is unable to work for any length of time without the pain and swelling returning." Following his examination on March 19, 1960, Dr. S. L. French reported that plaintiff's right hip was two inches less than the left and the right calf one-half inch less than the left and expressed the opinion that he could not perform laboring type work.
A letter addressed "To Whom it May Concern", dated May 10, 1960, from the Kentucky Department of Economic Security, Division of Children's Services, was also introduced in evidence at the hearing. It read as follows:
Defendant relies heavily on the case of United States v. Spaulding, 293 U.S. 498, 55 S.Ct. 273, 79 L.Ed. 617, to support his contention that the doctors' opinions as to plaintiff's total and permanent disability are without weight. The hearing examiner stated this contention as follows:
Judge Swinford very adequately disposed of the same contention in Dean v. Flemming, DC Ky., 180 F.Supp. 553, 556:
In the case at bar, no evidence appears in the record to rebut that introduced by the plaintiff. Only the two determinations of no disability by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Moss v. Burkhart, 9130.
-
Reyes Robles v. Finch
...for summary judgment was whether or not the Secretary's denial of disability was supported by substantial evidence. Rials v. Ribicoff, 207 F.Supp. 904, 905 (W.D. Ky.1962); cf. Ledbetter v. Celebrezze, 324 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1963). We deem ourselves compelled to reverse. The district court's......
-
Itteilag v. Richardson, Civ. A. No. 4455.
...for summary judgment was whether or not the Secretary's denial of disability was supported by substantial evidence. Rials v. Ribicoff, 207 F.Supp. 904, 905 (W.D.Ky.1962); cf. Ledbetter v. Celebrezze, 324 F.2d 735 (5th Cir. 1963). We deem ourselves compelled to reverse. The district court's ......
-
Braaksma v. Celebrezze, 64-1409.
...this court is whether the transcript of the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings of the Secretary. Rials v. Ribicoff, 207 F.Supp. 904, 905 D.C. The Hearing Examiner's decision of July 14, 1964, which became the final administrative decision of the Secretary on plaint......