MRS. PATRICIA DEWRELL, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MRS. LONIE S. JACKSON, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, AS SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, DEFENDANT-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 administrative decision denying Social Security benefits was supported by substantial evidence and that the claimant received procedural due process.
A claimant sought Social Security disability benefits, which were denied by the Secretary. The District Court affirmed the denial based on a Magistrat…
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 Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this suit for review of a denial of Social Security benefits, claimant alleges that there was no substantial evidence to justify denial of her claim and that she was denied procedural due process in her disability hearing. The District Court, relying on its Magistrate’s recommendations, affirmed the administrative decision. We affirm.
The Social Security Act provides that the Secretary’s factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence shall be conclusive. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g). This Court’s task, therefore, is limited to review of the administrative record to determine if there is such substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision. See Jackson v. Richardson, 449 F. 2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1971).
Section 223(d)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(2) (A) provides that
an individual . . . shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental . . . impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy ....
Careful review of the record reveals substantial medical evidence that claimant did not qualify for benefits under this definition of “disability.”
We find no merit in appellant’s claim that she was denied procedural due process in her disability hearing.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. of Cal., 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)
-
Noorlander v. Ciccone, 489 F.2d 642 (8th Cir. 1973)
-
Knecht v. Gillman, 488 F.2d 1136 (8th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Jackson v. Elliott L. Richardson, 449 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1971)