Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

462 F.2d 81

Docket No. 71-3478.

Baker v. Richardson

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-06-26

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1989

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Richardson v. Wright · Doyle v. Richardson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1972-06-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Fifth Circuit.

Jay E. Loeb, Michael H. Terry, John C. Fauvre, Richard M. Pearl, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Paul Merlin, Chief of Litigation, Soc. Security Div., Dept. of H. E. & W., Harland F. Leathers, David Epstein, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Judith S. Feigin, Attys., L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.

Before WISDOM, THORNBERRY and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

The plaintiffs-appellants, Social Security claimants, contend that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare violated procedural due process in suspending benefit payments without prior adequate notice and without an evidentiary hearing. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for reconsideration in light of Richardson v. Wright, 1972, 405 U.S. 208, 92 S.Ct. 788, 31 L.Ed.2d 151, Doyle v. Richardson, 5 Cir. 1972, 458 F.2d 987, and the Department's new procedures for dealing with overpayments, as set forth in the amended Social Security Administration's Claims Manual.

¶2

Vacated and remanded.

/462/f2d/81 · .json · Public domain