TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leila J. Goodman v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Leila J. GOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee

Goodman v. Richardson, 448 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1971)
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
October 14, 1971
Docket
No. 71-2012
Judges
Bell, Ainsworth, Godbold
Citations
448 F.2d 388

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court which affirmed a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, denying appellant’s application for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416 (i), 423(d), as amended. We affirm.

Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the Secretary’s denial of benefits and that she was not accorded a fair hearing at the administrative level because she was not represented by counsel.

The hearing examiner concluded that appellant was not disabled prior or at the time that she last met the insured status requirement under the Act. The evidence is substantial to warrant that conclusion and the District Court so found. The function of the reviewing court is limited. It is not to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary. Its role is to determine if the record contains substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision. 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 .

There is no merit to appellant’s contention that she was not given a fair hearing because of lack of counsel. The record shows, and the District Court found, that the applicant was fully informed of her right to obtain counsel. She decided, however, to forego this right and so indicated at the hearing. Moreover, the record shows that claimant was given a full and fair hearing and that she suffered no prejudice by the absence of counsel. See Cross v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 406, 409 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 41 cases

View all citing references →
1972: 31973: 31974: 21975: 41976: 11977: 51978: 31979: 41980: 41981: 71983: 11984: 32025: 119722026peak 1981 · 7

Most recent

  1. Theus v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONNo. 2:24-cv-02579 (W.D. Tenn. July 8, 2025)
  2. Poulin v. Heckler591 F. Supp. 1577 (D.D.C. 1984)
  3. Edna KANE v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services731 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1984)
  4. Perez v. Heckler581 F. Supp. 1095 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
  5. Thomas v. Schweiker573 F. Supp. 327 (W.D. Tex. 1983)
  6. Rials v. Califano520 F. Supp. 786 (E.D. Tex. 1981)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Brown v. Finch, 429 F.2d 80 (5th Cir. 1970) 47
Cross v. Finch, 427 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1970) 45
Rome v. Finch, 409 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1969) 34
Richardson v. Richardson, 437 F.2d 109 (5th Cir. 1971) 5

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