Varner v. Ribicoff, Civ. No. 4187.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4187. |
| Citation | 200 F. Supp. 666 |
| Parties | Charles M. VARNER v. Abraham A. RIBICOFF, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
Eugene Webb, Cheek, Taylor & Groover, Knoxville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
J. D. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.
This suit was filed under Section 205 (g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S. C.A. § 405(g), to review the decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. If the findings of fact of the Secretary are supported by substantial evidence, they are binding upon the trial court under this provision of the Act.
Final decision in this case was rendered on December 19, 1960 by the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council affirmed the decision of the Hearing Examiner (now referred to as the "Referee") which was rendered on March 25, 1960.
The Examiner and the Appeals Council held that plaintiff was not entitled to establishment of a period of disability under Section 216(i) of the Act (42 U.S. C.A. § 416(i) ), or to disability insurance benefits under Section 223 of the Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 423).
The sole issue for the determination of this Court is whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of fact of the Appeals Council.
A review of the record shows that the Examiner gave the case thorough and careful consideration and that he followed the standards prescribed by the Act in reaching his conclusions.
The Appeals Council received and considered evidence not before the Examiner and which tended to support the contentions of plaintiff in the case. This evidence consisted of a letter from Tennessee Mill & Mine Supply Company, Knoxville, Tennessee, dated January 8th, 1960, a former employer of plaintiff. Also, a letter from Locke Plumbing & Heating Company, Knoxville, dated January 4, 1960, likewise submitted by the plaintiff. In addition, a report from St. Mary's Memorial Hospital, Knoxville, dated July 18th, 1960 was received and considered.
The Appeals Council found that the new evidence supported the Hearing Examiner's conclusion that while "claimant does have some heart involvement which would probably preclude him from engaging in sustained strenuous work activity" the medical does not establish that the impairment is so severe as would be expected to prevent claimant from engaging in any type of substantial or gainful activity.
Further, the Appeals Council adopted "all the findings, inferences and conclusions of the Hearing Examiner based upon the evidential facts, and his decision. * * *" was affirmed.
Plaintiff met the quarters of coverage requirement when he filed his application. In order for plaintiff to be eligible for monthly insurance benefits based upon his application of February 18, 1959, he must have been under a continuous disability as defined in the Act continuing to the time of the filing of his application. (Sec. 223(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(c).)
Plaintiff, in his application, stated that he became unable to work in March, 1958 due to a heart condition; that he had an eighth grade education.
At the hearing, he testified that he drove a car into the Knoxville area about once a week, a round trip of around six miles, and did a little work in the garden; that while working as a maintenance man for a sanitarium in 1957 he developed chest pains and was advised to quit work; that during the first month of 1958 he continued to operate a television repair shop in his basement but quit that work and sold the equipment in March, 1958 when the doctor warned him against lifting television sets. His wife corroborated his testimony in these respects.
A medical report of Dr. Hubert Hill, dated February 28, 1959 showed that he had examined plaintiff at irregular intervals since November, 1957 when he was suffering with exertional chest pain; that an electrocardiogram at St. Mary's Hospital showed an irregular rhythmic condidition of the heart and abnormal slowness of the heart, and that his blood pressure was 160/104 but was variable and had been as high as 206/130; that there was a slight heart enlargement; no dyspnea or edema but angina on slight exertion.
Doctor Hill diagnosed his condition as angina pectoris with chronic heart disease and hypertension, and stated that in his opinion plaintiff was unable to perform any strenuous activity.
On October 7, 1959 and January 12, 1960, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Hill and it was the opinion of Dr. Hill that he was disabled by virtue...
To continue reading
Request your trial