Larry Marshall v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary, Health & Human Services
Larry MARSHALL, Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary, Health & Human Services, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Larry Marshall’s claim for social security disability benefits was denied by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The district court 1
affirmed, finding that the Secretary’s decision was based on substantial evidence.
Marshall v, Schweiker, No. LR-C-81-297 (E.D.Ark.March 30, 1982). We agree.
Our ability to review the record in this case was limited by the fact that several pages of medical records were illegible. In some circumstances this may be cause for remand.
Cutler v. Weinberger, 516 F.2d 1282, 1285 (2d Cir. 1975). Here, however, there is more than enough evidence to support the Secretary’s decision and no indication that the illegible records would aid the appellant.
2
We therefore affirm on the grounds stated in the district court opinion pursuant to 8th Cir. R. 14.
1
. The Honorable William R. Overton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
2
. Because of the importance of a complete record to proper review of social security benefits cases, we urge that those responsible for assembling and duplicating the records take particular care in order to speed consideration of these cases and to prevent remands.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Earl BRISSETTE v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Dessie M. MILLER v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Bettye Williams v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, 1 Commissioner, Social Security Administration
- Robert J. ANDRES v. Otis BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Joe A. POWELL v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Hidalgo-Rosa v. Colvin
Most recent
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.