Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

443 F.2d 347

Docket No. 71-1024

Price v. Richardson

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided May 26, 1971.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-05-26

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1972

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Thus, the fact that the claimant was retained by his employer from December, 1965, to March, 1969, is indicative of the fact that the duties performed by the claimant were of a satisfactory nature to his employer. The evidence of record establishes that the time spent in work activities by the claimant was comparable to that spent by individuals without impairment in similar work activities as a regular means of livelihood. The record also establishes that the claimant's earnings were in excess of $140.00 per month, which is a substantial gainful activity level prescribed by the regulations of the Social Security Administration. Therefore, it must be determined that the claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity at the time his earnings requirements were last met, which was June 30, 1967, and for some two-year period subsequent thereto. Thus, a period of disability has not been established by the evidence of record to have existed as of June 30, 1967, or prior thereto.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ray O. Hedge v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Butler v. Flemming · Hayes v. Celebrezze

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-05-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Summary Calendar.*

¶2Walter Henley, Northport, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

¶3Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., J. Richmond Pearson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Morton Hollander, J. F. Bishop, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellee.

¶4Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and INGRAHAM and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7From June 1965 to December 1970 Clay Moody owned and operated a small meat processing business while suffering from the devastating and ultimately fatal effects of cancer. His claim for Social Security disability benefits for this period was administratively denied on the grounds that he had been engaged in “substantial gainful activity” and hence was not disabled within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d) (1). In a suit brought by his executrix the District Court upheld this determination. We affirm.

¶8Of course the scope of our review is narrowly limited to the question of whether the disallowance of benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Al*348though the record reveals that the claimant obviously was unable to engage in any sort of even moderately strenuous physical activity, nevertheless he came to work six days a week, supervised his employees, took telephone orders, handled accounts receivable and generally acted as overseer of the business’s day-to-day operations. Unlike the disabilities we considered in Butler v. Flemming, 5 Cir., 1961, 288 F.2d 591 and Hayes v. Celebrezze, 5 Cir., 1963, 311 F.2d 648, his condition was not so severe as to preclude for all practical purposes his doing any work at all, and he did in fact contribute significant managerial expertise to the operation of a profit-making enterprise.

¶9We therefore conclude that the evidence supports a finding that, although bearing the burden of a terminal illness, the claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity and hence was not disabled under the law.

¶10Affirmed.

/443/f2d/347 · .json · Public domain