Williams v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 19 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1049 Summary Calendar.,72-1049 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 458 F.2d 991 |
| Parties | Clarence WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles Tyler Clark, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant; Johnston & Shores, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Henry I. Frohsin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., of counsel. Paul Merlin, Sarah L. Kemble, Soc. Sec. Div. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, for defendant-appellee.
Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Williams appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare denying Williams's application for the establishment of a period of disability and for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Because the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we affirm. See Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; Jackson v. Richardson, 5 Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 1326; Blanks v. Richardson, 5 Cir. 1971, 439 F.2d 1158; Richardson v. Richardson, 5 Cir. 1970, 437 F.2d 109; Cooper v. Finch, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 315; Brown v. Finch, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 80; Rome v. Finch, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 1329; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
In a disability case involving complex physiological issues, we disapprove of the action of the hearing examiner relying on his own interpretation of medical texts rather than the opinion of qualified experts. We do not believe, however, that, in view of substantial evidence to support the Secretary's determination, this was reversible error.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyler v. Weinberger
...own exploration and assessment as to plaintiff's physical condition. Day v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1975); Williams v. Richardson, 458 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1972). As already noted, it is within the Court's purview to consider errors of law on review of these cases. In Williams v. ......
-
Nichols v. Saul
...Opinion in Lieu of the Medical Record Plaintiff argues the ALJ substituted his lay opinion for that of a medical expert and cites to Williams v. Richardson in support. However, in that case involving "complex physiological issues," theFifth Circuit merely "disapprove[d]" of the examiner's r......
-
Day v. Weinberger
...medical textbooks for the purpose of making his own exploration and assessment as to claimant's physical condition. Williams v. Richardson, 458 F.2d 991, 992 (5th Cir., 1972). The examiner could, of course, consider Day's general appearance and her testimony at the hearing. He observed that......
-
Goodley v. Harris
...as to what is the best "treatment" for appellant for that of the medical expert. This practice was frowned upon in Williams v. Richardson, 458 F.2d 991, 992 (5th Cir. 1972), and may constitute reversible error in the proper case.2 In order to qualify for disability benefits under the Act, a......