TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edith E. Christopher v. Robert W. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Edith E. CHRISTOPHER, Appellant, v. Robert W. FINCH, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Christopher v. Finch, 452 F.2d 1237 (3d Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 11, 1972
Docket
No. 19415
Judges
Hastie, Aldisert, Rosen
Citations
452 F.2d 12371972 U.S. App. LEXIS 11889

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM:

This appeal from summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in an action brought pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) contends that the Secretary erred in not finding appellant qualified for agency payments, that the agency denied appellant a full opportunity to present her claim, and that the district court erred (a) in granting summary judgment, and (b) in not granting summary judgment in her behalf and remanding the cause to the Secretary. Alternatively, she asks that the judgment be vacated and the proceedings remanded to the Secretary for the purpose of receiving additional medical evidence at a hearing. We will grant the alternative relief.

Appellant argues that a remand is proper because additional medical evidence is available from a Dr. R. Middleton Frazier, Jr., suggesting a diagnosis of “acute anxiety state with depressive reaction” and “anxiety state with psychophysiological reaction.” A reviewing court has authority under § 205(g), on good cause shown, to order additional evidence taken at the agency level. Moreover, the Secretary has indicated that he has no objection to a remand for the purpose of receiving appellant’s additional medical evidence.

In addition, appellant urges this court to order the immediate payment of benefits, arguing that such action is appropriate where a claimant’s case is strong and the Secretary has not affirmatively countered it, and where there has existed a long time interval between the loss of employment and the filing of the claim. An independent review of the record does not convince us that we should order payment of benefits prior to additional agency action.

The judgment of the district court, 317 F.Supp. 1101 , will be vacated with the direction to remand the proceedings to the Secretary to afford appellant the opportunity to present additional medical evidence.

How later courts describe this case

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

1973: 11978: 119732026peak 1973 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robinson v. Richardson360 F. Supp. 243 (E.D.N.Y. 1973)
  2. Neumerski v. Califano456 F. Supp. 979 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Neumerski v. Califano456 F. Supp. 979 (E.D. Pa. 1978)
  2. Robinson v. Richardson360 F. Supp. 243 (E.D.N.Y. 1973)

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
Christopher v. Finch, 317 F. Supp. 1101 (E.D. Pa. 1970) 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