TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Roy A. Green v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Roy A. GREEN, Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee

Green v. Gardner, 391 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 19, 1968
Docket
No. 24993_1
Judges
Rives, Gewin, Thorn-Berry
Citations
391 F.2d 6061968 U.S. App. LEXIS 7648

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The appellant applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II, Section 216 (i) and 223 of the Social Security Act as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. 416(i) and 423, in which he briefly described his impairment as “nerves & arthritis & heart murmur.” Upon hearing, the claimant, represented by counsel, testified at length. There was considerable additional evidence, including some six or seven medical reports and certificates of physicians who differed widely in their opin *607 ions. The hearing examiner made elaborate and detailed findings, as a result of which he decided that the claimant is not entitled to have a period of disability established or to disability insurance benefits. The Appeals Council affirmed the hearing examiner’s decision. The district court reviewed the decision pursuant to section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g). Upon such review it is provided that, “The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” The district court found that substantial evidence supports the findings and determinations of the Secretary and affirmed the decision. After careful consideration of the record on appeal, including the administrative transcript, we find that the findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the Secretary applied the proper legal standards. Those are the two basic questions to be decided on this appeal. Gardner v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 77 . The judgment is therefore Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 21971: 31972: 21974: 11975: 119692026peak 1971 · 3

Most recent

  1. Good v. Weinberger389 F. Supp. 350 (W.D. Pa. 1975)
  2. Virginia Dixon v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare495 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1974)
  3. Tietze v. Richardson342 F. Supp. 610 (S.D. Tex. 1972)
  4. Bonilla v. Richardson340 F. Supp. 185 (W.D. Tex. 1972)
  5. Pate v. Richardson330 F. Supp. 39 (S.D. Tex. 1971)
  6. McCleery v. Finch332 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D. Tex. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Gardner v. Smith, 368 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1966) 38

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list