Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

458 F.2d 991

Docket No. 72-1049 Summary Calendar.*

Clarence Williams v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-04-19

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1979

5 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

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)

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Brown v. Finch

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1972-04-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Charles Tyler Clark, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant; Johnston & Shores, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Henry I. Frohsin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., of counsel. Paul Merlin, Sarah L. Kemble, Soc. Sec. Div. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, for defendant-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Clarence Williams appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare denying Williams's application for the establishment of a period of disability and for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 416(i) and 423. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g). Because the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we affirm. See Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456; Jackson v. Richardson, 5 Cir. 1971, 449 F.2d 1326; Blanks v. Richardson, 5 Cir. 1971, 439 F.2d 1158; Richardson v. Richardson, 5 Cir. 1970, 437 F.2d 109; Cooper v. Finch, 5 Cir. 1970, 433 F.2d 315; Brown v. Finch, 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 80; Rome v. Finch, 5 Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 1329; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g).

¶2

In a disability case involving complex physiological issues, we disapprove of the action of the hearing examiner relying on his own interpretation of medical texts rather than the opinion of qualified experts. We do not believe, however, that, in view of substantial evidence to support the Secretary's determination, this was reversible error.

¶3

Affirmed.

/458/f2d/991 · .json · Public domain