Roberts v. Celebrezze

• Decision Date: 17 March 1965
• Docket Number: No. 64-C-20.,64-C-20.
• Citation: 239 F. Supp. 262
• Parties: Louise ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. Anthony CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

239 F. Supp. 262

Louise ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. Anthony CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.

No. 64-C-20.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

March 17, 1965.

Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., for defendant; by Michael J. Walsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Morton Werbel, Brooklyn, for plaintiff; in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and for the plaintiff's cross-motion.

RAYFIEL, District Judge.

The plaintiff brings this action against the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (The Secretary), pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (Section 405(g) of Title 42, U.S.Code) to review and reverse a decision of a Hearing Examiner of the Social Security Administration, affirmed by the Appeals Council, which denied her a period of disability and disability benefits.

The Secretary has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for an order remanding the case to the Social Security Administration for the purpose of taking additional evidence.

These are the facts: The plaintiff, a married woman, was born on September 23, 1915. She had an eighth grade education and had been employed as a domestic. Most of her employment, however, was as a sewing machine operator, sewing labels on women's sweaters. She was employed in that capacity until June, 1960, when, as she claims, she was obliged to terminate her employment by reason of migraine headaches from which she had suffered for some years. Thereafter, some time in 1961, she began to suffer from bronchial asthma and was subject to recurrent attacks which, she claims, have caused her to become completely incapacitated.

On March 15, 1962 she filed an application for a period of disability and for disability insurance benefits under Sections 216(i) and 223(a) of the Act (Sections 416(i) and 423(a) of Title 42, U.S. Code). Her application was rejected by the Division of Disability Operations of The Social Security Administration on the ground that she did not have an impairment or combination of impairments of such severity as to entitle her to benefits. She requested a hearing before a hearing examiner but waived her right to appear and give testimony before him, resting on the evidence submitted to him.

In a decision dated February 20, 1963 the Hearing Examiner reviewed all of the evidence and found that she was "not entitled to disability insurance benefits or to a period of disability under Section 223(a) and 216 of the Social Security Act."

Subsequent to the decision the plaintiff requested a hearing, which was granted by the hearing officer. On April 12, 1963 she and a witness on her behalf named Cotillia Poles, appeared and testified before him. The Hearing Examiner, in a decision dated November 15, 1963, adhered to his original decision denying her benefits. Appended to that decision was a note which stated that it was the Hearing Officer's opinion "that beginning in November 1962, that is after the claimant's application ceased to become effective, and continuing thereafter, that the claimant's respiratory condition worsened." It went on to suggest that the claimant (plaintiff herein) might wish to file a new application for benefits since she met the special earnings requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 1964.

The plaintiff filed a request for a review of the Hearing Examiner's decision and on December 6, 1963 the Appeals Council of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare denied the request for review and she then commenced this action on January 13, 1964.

An analysis of the Hearing Examiner's decision of February 20, 1963 reveals that he arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was not suffering from "an impairment or combination of impairments, either singly or in combination, of such severity as to preclude her from engaging in any substantial gainful activity at any time for which her application of March 15, 1962 was effective" principally on the basis of two reports dated August 4 and September 5, 1962 by Dr. Roland Gluck, to whom the plaintiff had been sent for examination by the Department of Social Welfare of the State of New York, Bureau of Disability Determinations. The Hearing Examiner devoted almost three single-spaced pages of his decision to these reports, which he characterized as being "the most descriptive objective medical evidence in the case." He evidently gave little consideration to the reports of Dr. Carl J. Sachs, Dr. Harry Goldberg and Dr. William Zimmerman, all of whom had treated the plaintiff for considerable periods of time prior to her application for disability benefits, and all of whom had found that she was suffering from severe headaches and asthma, and had reported that she could not do housework, walk stairs or carry heavy weights. Nor does it appear that he gave any weight to the Report of the Kings County Hospital, dated March 23, 1962, to which he adverted in his decision, in spite of the fact that, as he pointed out the report showed "very frequent visits" from January 28, 1960 to January 16, 1962, and the diagnosis was "anxiety syndrome, allergic rhinitis, psychogenic hoarseness."

Apparently the Hearing Officer was not impressed with the Kings County Hospital report, dated October 26, 1962, for in his decision of February 20, 1963 he refers to it as follows:

"Although there is in evidence a report from Kings County Hospital showing claimant was treated in the emergency unit on October 8, 1962, nothing is shown in these reports (sic) to explain the cause of the asthma attack on October 8, 1962 and the fact that claimant was `sent home' immediately after attacks (sic) shows that the episode was controlled summarily. The evidence is insufficient to show that claimant suffered asthmatic attacks of such frequency and duration as to preclude all substantial gainful activity, although it may be that claimant suffered occasional brief temporary disabling episodes."

...