Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

411 F.2d 1195

Docket No. 13136.

Moss v. Gardner

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted June 10, 1969.

Decided June 19,1969.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1969-06-19

2 counsel of record

Relies on Ray v. Gardner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1969-06-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1985

1 federal appellate · 5 district ·

70196919701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Gary A. Sluder, Asheville, N. C. (Court-appointed counsel), on brief for appellant.

¶2William Medford, U. S. Atty., and William M. Styles, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief for appellee.

¶3Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare denied the claim of Grier F. Moss for the establishment of a period of disability and to disability benefits. Upon reconsideration the claim was again denied which denial was affirmed by the Appeals Council. Later Moss filed a new application for disability benefits which application was initially denied. Upon reconsideration a hearing was conducted before a Hearing Examiner, the Examiner rendered a decision denying the claim for benefits, the Appeals Council denied claimant’s request for review and the Hearing Examiner’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary.

¶6The district court found, on the record as a whole, substantial evidence to support the final decision of the Secretary within the provisions and definitions of the Social Security Act. Moss prosecutes this appeal from the decision of the district court.

¶7 It is the duty of the Secretary, as the trier of fact in such cases, to weigh the evidence, medical and nonmedieal, and to resolve any conflicts in the evidence in reaching his decision. This was done and we agree with the district court’s determination that the Secretary’s decision is amply supported by substantial evidence. See Ray v. Gardner, 387 F.2d 162, 164 (4 Cir. 1967).

¶8Affirmed.

/411/f2d/1195 · .json · Public domain