Ward v. Celebrezze
| Decision Date | 15 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 19380.,19380. |
| Citation | 311 F.2d 115 |
| Parties | Charles L. WARD, Appellant, v. Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas E. Joiner, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Slayton Clemmons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Morton Hollander, Murray H. Bring, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.
The appellant, Charles L. Ward, was an automobile mechanic. After being in an automobile accident, Ward began having pain in his neck and shoulders. It was found that the pain resulted from a ruptured disc. Treatment did not eliminate the pain and the disc was removed by surgery. He obtained employment as a gate watchman at which he worked for about two years. He left this job and has not since been employed. He sought to establish a period of disability under Section 216(i) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(i). The administrative proceeding resulted in a decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare that, although Ward continued to have some pain in his neck and back, the evidence did not show his over-all ability to be so severely affected as "to continuously prevent" him from engaging in some type of substantial gainful work. The jurisdiction of the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia was invoked to review the decision of the Secretary. The district court entered a summary judgment affirming the Secretary's decision. An appeal from that judgment is before us for determination.
The issue before the district court, under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act,1 was whether the finding of the Secretary on the question of disability was supported by substantial evidence. It is urged before us by the Secretary that the scope of review, which should be applied by this Court, in a substantiality case where a district court has passed upon the question, should be limited to a determination of whether the district court misapprehended or grossly misapplied the substantial evidence test. The Secretary would have us apply the same standard of review which is followed by the Supreme Court, in its review of the decision of a court of appeal in a case where the initial review is made by that court. Universal Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; N.L.R.B. v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 340 U.S. 498, 71 S.Ct. 453, 95 L.Ed. 479; O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483. The Government makes an appealing argument that the Congress did not intend that there should be a review of the evidence by two courts for a determination of the substantiality of the evidence. However plausible this contention may be, we are not persuaded that we should depart from the judicial precedents holding otherwise. Flemming, Secretary, v. Booker, 5th Cir. 1960, 283 F.2d 321; Roberson v. Ribicoff, Secretary, 6th Cir. 1962, 299 F.2d 761.
Disability, as defined by the Act, means inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration. 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(i) (1). The family physician was of the belief that Ward was permanently disabled. The neurosurgeons who examined Ward, and there were several of them, were pretty well of a single mind that he was, or would become in a reasonable period, capable of doing some type of work. The difficulty with their testimony is that they do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loza v. Apfel, 98-50892
...Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Randall v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 105, 109 (5th Cir. 1992); Rivas, 475 F.2d at 257-58; Ward v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1963). Written reports by physicians who have examined the claimant setting forth medical data are admissible in evidence in ......
-
Zenith Electronics Corp. v. U.S.
...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 that "we are not persuaded that we should depart from the judicial preced......
-
NSK Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 2011-1362
...not the role of the courts of appeals. See Celebrezze 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 Cam......
-
Knott v. Califano, 77-1854
...whether there is substantial evidence in the record, considered as a whole, to support them. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); see Ward v. Celebrezze, 5th Cir. 1963, 311 F.2d 115, 116. Substantial evidence is "more than a scintilla, and must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact ......
-
Table of Cases
...§§ 307.2, 1307 Ward v. Apfel , 65 F. Supp.2d 1208 (D. Kan. Sept. 30, 1999), §§ 203.5, 204.7, 307.1, 307.2, 607.1 Ward v. Celebrezze , 311 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1962), 5th-09 Ward v. Chater , 924 F. Supp. 53, 55 (W.D. Va. 1996), §§ 202.1, 202.2, 202.10 Ward v. Commissioner , 211 F.3d 652 (......
-
Table of cases
...§§ 307.2, 1307 Ward v. Apfel , 65 F. Supp.2d 1208 (D. Kan. Sept. 30, 1999), §§ 203.5, 204.7, 307.1, 307.2, 607.1 Ward v. Celebrezze , 311 F.2d 115, 116 (5th Cir. 1962), 5th-09 Ward v. Chater , 924 F. Supp. 53, 55 (W.D. Va. 1996), §§ 202.1, 202.2, 202.10 Ward v. Commissioner , 211 F.3d 652 (......