HOWARD W. HEARD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 district court erred in making its own findings of fact that conflicted with the Secretary's findings, which were supported by substantial evidence.
The case involves a retiree's entitlement to old-age social security benefits. The Secretary determined the retiree's income from salary and self-empl…
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 Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This case involves the standard of review by a district court of a determination of fact by the Secretary bearing on the entitlement of a covered person of 65 years of age to old age social security benefits. It is plain on the record here that there was substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s findings that the retiree’s income from salary and self employment equalled the salary paid to him by his corporation, set up to take over his sole proprietorship at age 65, the salary paid to his wife who did no substantial work, plus the profits remaining in the corporation at the end of the accounting period.
The trial court erred in making findings of fact1 in conflict with findings by the Secretary thus substantially supported on the record as a whole. See Brown v. Finch, 5 Cir., dec. July 2, 1970, 429 F. 2d 80; Knox v. Finch, 5 Cir., dec. June 12, 1970, 427 F. 2d 919.
The judgment is reversed and the ease is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment for the Secretary.
. The trial court found that the retiree, after incorporation, performed “markedly restricted services,” whereas the Secretary found as a fact that “claimant’s work activities in the store are substantially the same since incorporation as they were prior thereto. * * * ”
It is not disputed that the volume of business and sales were also substantially the same after incorporation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Finch, 429 F.2d 80 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Jasper W. Knox v. Finch, 427 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1970)