Smith v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Spaulding · Simpson v. United States · Thomas v. Celebrezze
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“255 F.Supp. — 21 Although such a determination is not binding on the Hearing Examiner who must make an independent determination on the question of whether the plaintiff is able to engage in any substantial gainful activity, Johnson v. Flemming, 188 F.Supp. 447, 450 (D.Ore. 1960); Hayes v. Celebrezze, 5 Cir., 311 F.2d 648, 653 (1963), the employment of the words “not determinative” in the Social Security Regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525 , plainly implies that if such a finding by another agency is not determinative of the issue then it is to be given some weight, Fowler v. Celebrezze, 222 F.Supp. 609, 611 (W.D.N.C.1963); Mischler v. Celebrezze, 227 F.Supp. 754, 756 (E.D.La.1964) and must be considered along with the other evidence, Stoliaroff v. Ribicoff, 198 F.Supp. 587, 590 (N.D.N.Y.1961). The Hearing Examiner at the least, should have evaluated the standards by which the plaintiff was granted the compensation he claimed before such other agency to determine the significance of those standards. Hayes v. Celebrezze, supra, 311 F.2d at p. 654 ; Smith v. Gardner, 251 F.Supp. 262, 268 (M.D.N.C.1966). That the plaintiff is unable to return to his former employment is unquestioned. The Hearing Examiner, amply supported by substantial evidence found that he: “ * * * is unable to return to his former work of operating a ‘back hoe’ or other heavy equipment, or working in concrete, setting forms, or doing other heavy manual labor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the courts are not to interpret the Social Security Act so broadly as to equate it with unemployment compensation, Celebrezze v. Sutton, 8 Cir., 338 F.2d 417 , 422 (1964); Richard v. Celebrezze, 247 F.Supp. 183, 185 (D.Minn.1965), the Act is nevertheless to be construed liberally, Bradey v. Ribicoff, 4 Cir., 298 F.2d 855 (1962), cert. den. 370 U.S. 951, 82 S.Ct. 1601, 8 L.Ed.2d 817 (1962), cert. den., sub nom. Heath et al. v. Celebrezze, 372 U.S. 945, 83 S.Ct. 938, 9 L.Ed.2d 970 (1963); Celebrezze v. Bolas, 8 Cir., 316 F.2d 498 , 500 (1963); Rodriguez v. Celebrezze, 1 Cir., 349 F.2d 494 ; De Gracia v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 248 F.Supp. 522 (D.P.R.1966).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Floyd v. Finch
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.