FRANCES P. FERRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN W. GARDNER, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court's judgment upholding the Secretary's denial of disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The Secretary denied the application, finding claimant could engage in substan…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Period Of Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Claimant, Frances P. Ferrell, prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of the district court which upheld the denial by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of her application for the establishment of a period of disability and for the award of disability benefits under the provisions of §§ 216(i) and 223(a) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423(a). By direction of the court the case was submitted on briefs without oral argument. Upon review of the record and careful consideration of the briefs we reach the conclusion that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
The determination of the Secretary may be overturned only if it is not based upon substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence” has been defined by this court to mean “evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F. 2d 640, 642 (4 Cir. 1966).
In the instant case the Secretary determined that claimant was able to engage in substantial gainful activity. The district court agreed. Upon the record we find substantial evidence to support the district court’s order sustaining the determination of the Secretary.1
Affirmed.
. Daniel v. Gardner, 404 F. 2d 889 (4 Cir. Dee. 6, 1968); Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F. 2d 640 (4 Cir. 1966); Bells v. Cele-brezze, 360 F. 2d 601 (4 Cir. 1966) ; Gotshaw v. Ribicoff, 307 F. 2d 840 (4 Cir. 1962).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Domozik v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1969)
Authorities Cited
- Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th Cir. 1966)
- Mrs. Annie M. Gotshaw v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 840 (4th Cir. 1962)
- Charley E. Bells v. Celebrezze, 360 F.2d 601 (4th Cir. 1966)
- Brick v. Okaloosa Title & Abstract Co., Inc., 404 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1968)