Thompson v. Social Security Board, 9099.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 9099.,9099. |
| Citation | 81 US App. DC 27,154 F.2d 204 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. W. P. Cannady, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Hubert H. Margolies, Attorney, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., with whom Assistant Attorney General, John F. Sonnett and Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Messrs. Charles B. Murray and Daniel B. Maher, Assistant United States Attorneys, both of Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Associate Justices.
Appellant sued in the District Court to review a decision of the Social Security Board. This appeal is from a summary judgment for the Board.
Appellant had filed with the Board a claim to insurance benefits as the widow of a wage-earner. The Board had found, on conflicting evidence, that appellant was not "living with" the wage-earner at the time of his death and therefore was not entitled to benefits. 53 Stat. 1365, § 202(e) (1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(e) (1), 53 Stat. 1378, § 209(n), 42 U.S.C.A. § 409(n). The Board filed in the District Court a certified copy of the record, including the evidence on which the Board's findings and judgment were based. The proceedings before the court were a review of that record, not a trial de novo. Since the evidence in support of the Board's findings of fact was substantial, those findings were conclusive. 53 Stat. 1370, § 205(g), 42 U.S. C.A. § 405(g). The District Court was therefore right in entering summary judgment.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Flemming
...3 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 778, 781. The present action is not a trial de novo of the plaintiff's claim. Thompson v. Social Security Board, 1946, 81 U.S. App.D.C. 27, 154 F.2d 204; Ayers v. Hobby, D.C.1954, 123 F.Supp. 115, 116; Morgan v. Social Security Board, D.C. 1942, 45 F.Supp. 349, 350. T......
-
Carqueville v. Folsom
...circumscribed by statute and case law. The instant action is not a trial de novo of plaintiff's claims. Thompson v. Social Security Board, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 1946, 154 F.2d 204; Scalzi v. Folsom, D.C.R.I., 1957, 156 F.Supp. 838. The findings of the Secretary (in this case the referee) as t......
-
Hobby v. Hodges
...a court review within the statutory time would run counter to the apparent purposes and provisions of the Act. Thompson v. Social Security Board, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 154 F.2d 204; United States v. LaLone, 9 Cir., 152 F.2d 43; Social Security Board v. Warren, 8 Cir., 142 F.2d 974; Walker v. ......
-
Ferenz v. Folsom
...the referee which are supported by substantial evidence. Livingstone v. Folsom, 3 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 75; Thompson v. Social Security Board, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 154 F.2d 204; United States v. Lalone, 9 Cir., 1945, 152 F.2d 43; Walker v. Altmeyer, 2 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 531; Social Se......