Smith-Wilkins on Behalf of Hertzer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, SMITH-WILKINS
| Decision Date | 18 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | SMITH-WILKINS,No. 88-3199,88-3199 |
| Citation | 880 F.2d 864 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 14795A Joan M.on Behalf of Ericka HERTZER and Jamie Hertzer, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
William M. Culbert, Toledo, Ohio, J. Miles Gibson (argued), Gus Robbins-Penniman, Gibson & Robbins-Penniman, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.
Thomas A. Karol, Office of the U.S. Atty., Toledo, Ohio, Michael C. Messer (argued) Asst. Reg. Counsel, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.
John Zinkand, Fremont, Ohio, amicus curiae.
Before KRUPANSKY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services appeals from a decision of Magistrate James G. Carr which granted Mother's and Stepchildren's insurance benefits to the plaintiff-appellee. The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff had a common-law marriage with the deceased wage earner, David R. Wylam, on whose account the plaintiff seeks benefits for herself and her two children. The Secretary determined that there was no common-law marriage, after a contested hearing.
On August 3, 1984, the plaintiff-appellee, Joan M. Smith, filed an application for Mother's Insurance Benefits for herself and a separate application for Children's Insurance Benefits on behalf of her two children, Erica and Jamie. On September 5, 1984, an initial determination was made that a valid common-law relationship existed between Smith and the deceased, and benefits were awarded accordingly.
An application for child's insurance benefits was also filed, however, by Susan M. Hoffman, the former divorced wife of Wylam, on behalf of their minor child, Amy Wylam. An award certificate was issued awarding benefits to Amy in October of 1984. In November, Hoffman challenged the status of Joan Smith as common-law wife of the deceased, David Wylam. Absent such a finding of a recognized common-law relationship, Amy would be entitled to an increase in benefits of $210.00 per month as Wylam's minor daughter.
After a contested hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in a published decision held that Joan Smith was not the widow of the deceased, and therefore her children, Erica and Jamie, were not stepchildren of the deceased, and were not entitled to social security benefits on Wylam's account. It was the opinion of the ALJ that no common-law marriage existed between Smith and the deceased.
The Appeals Council denied Smith's request for review, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Secretary. Smith then filed her complaint seeking benefits and the magistrate granted Smith and her children the relief sought. This decision to treat Smith as a widow of the deceased, making her children eligible for benefits, has been appealed by the Secretary. A brief was also filed on behalf of Amy Wylam in support of the Secretary's position.
The issue is whether the ALJ's conclusion that Smith had produced no clear and convincing evidence of a common-law marriage with the deceased was supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the decision of the Secretary was so supported; accordingly, we reverse.
The findings of the Secretary must be accepted as conclusive by this court if they are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). The issue before the district court was whether the Secretary had reasonably determined that Smith had not produced clear and convincing evidence of the alleged common-law marriage. We conclude that the magistrate erred by reviewing the evidence de novo to decide that his view of the evidence established that Smith and Wylam were married under Ohio law. We have held that courts should review the Secretary's findings to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support those findings before reevaluating that evidence. Maziarz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir.1987). The district court's determination that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence is a conclusion of law, on the other hand, and is subject to de novo review by this court.
In its evaluation of the arguments regarding the substantiality of the evidence proffered by counsel for the respective parties, this Court remains mindful that "an administrative decision is not subject to reversal merely because substantial evidence would support an opposite decision." See Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir.1986) (quoting Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir.1984)).
Atterberry v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 871 F.2d 567 (6th Cir.1989).
Smith had the burden in support of her claim to prove...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashworth v. Sullivan
... ... Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human ... Services, ... ...
- Morter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
- Sponsler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., CASE NO. 1:17-CV-822
-
McClanahan v. Commissioner of Social Security
...246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). This Court reviews questions of law de novo. Smith-Wilkins v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 880 F.2d 864, 866 (6th Cir.1989). III. McClanahan brings two issues on appeal. First, he claims that the ALJ committed error because he appli......