Roberson v. Ribicoff, 14502.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 14502.,14502. |
| Citation | 299 F.2d 761 |
| Parties | Benton ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Abraham A. RIBICOFF, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
William L. Gibson, Gibson & Gibson, Louisville, Ky., for appellant.
Marvin S. Shapiro, Washington, D. C., William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., William B. Jones, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., on brief, for appellee.
Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a district court affirmance of the Social Security Administration's decision that claimant was not entitled to a period of disability and to disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.
Early in 1958, plaintiff made application to the appropriate bureau of the Social Security Administration, seeking disability insurance benefits and to establish a period of disability under Sections 223 and 216(i) of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 423 and 416(i) (1). In his application, plaintiff-appellant claimed that, because of a severe pain in his leg, he had been unable to work since the middle of September, 1957. The bureau denied his application on the ground of his failure to prove that his condition had prevented his engaging in substantial gainful work. Upon reconsideration, this denial was reaffirmed by the bureau. Thereafter, a hearing was held, at which claimant presented evidence of his physical condition. After reviewing all the evidence presented, the hearing examiner found that appellant's condition "has not reached the level of severity as to prevent the claimant from engaging in some substantial gainful activity."
Plaintiff then brought this action in the United States District Court for review of the administrative decision pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Act. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). The District Judge found that the decision of the hearing examiner, adopted by the bureau, was supported by substantial evidence and therefore was conclusive. From this summary judgment entered in favor of the Secretary, the plaintiff appeals.
The evidence introduced by appellant at the hearing consisted almost entirely of medical reports concerning his condition made by doctors who had examined him. Some ten reports, representing the opinions of at least four doctors, were put in evidence. In general, all the doctors agreed that the plaintiff was suffering from a tumor mass in the nerve under the right kneecap; that such a tumor caused great pain; and that it was a rare and serious condition, unlikely to improve. While the physicians agreed that the tumor might be excised, they were of opinion that an operation was not indicated, inasmuch as it might result in loss of the use of the leg. One doctor, who considered the effect of this condition on the plaintiff's ability to work, stated that the plaintiff probably was unable to work; another declared that in his opinion the plaintiff was completely disabled.
Plaintiff and his wife both testified in his behalf at the hearing. Their testimony was essentially that, because of the pain in his leg, plaintiff could not work at a regular job; that he could neither drive a car, nor walk, very far; and that, in order to get relief from pain, he had to lie down three or four times each day.
No evidence appears in the record to rebut that introduced by the appellant, the original bureau determination of no disability being the only thing contrary to the evidence presented. This determination apparently was based on only two of plaintiff's early medical reports and not on any personal examination to determine his condition.
Yet, the hearing examiner decided that the claimant was not entitled to the period of disability and to disability insurance benefits for which he had applied, inasmuch as his impairment had not reached the level of severity which would prevent his engaging in some substantial gainful activity. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zenith Electronics Corp. v. U.S.
...the Congress; and (2) the argument makes no provision for the established superintending power of the Supreme Court." Roberson v. Ribicoff, 299 F.2d 761, 763 (6th Cir.1962). The Fifth Circuit in Ward v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1962), when presented with the argument, merely stated......
-
NSK Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 2011-1362
...v. Bolas, 316 F.2d 498, 501 (8th Cir. 1963) (Blackmun, J.); Ward v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1962); Roberson v. Ribicoff, 299 F.2d 761 (6th Cir. 1962). Those courts have treated the Supreme Court's remarks in Universal Camera as referring to its own role vis-à-vis the courts ......
-
Paul v. Ribicoff
...the Clifton case, this alone establishes a prima facie case of disability which must then be rebutted by the Secretary; Roberson v. Ribicoff, 6 Cir., 1962, 299 F.2d 761. When, in the instant case, the plaintiff showed his relatively advanced age of sixty-two years (in view of current econom......
-
Miracle v. Celebrezze, 15992.
...that without such findings the decision of the Secretary cannot be supported. King v. Flemming, 6 Cir., 289 F.2d 808; Roberson v. Ribicoff, 6 Cir., 299 F.2d 761; Holbrook v. Ribicoff, 6 Cir., 305 F.2d 933; Jarvis v. Ribicoff 312 F.2d 707 (C.A.6); Hall v. Celebrezze, 6 Cir., 314 F.2d 686; Jo......