Norman Weiner v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and the United States of America
1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7691 · 449 F.2d 1293
October 8, 1971 · Docket 26207_1
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The Ninth Circuit has held that the statutory review is limited to a substantial‑evidence inquiry, citing Chavies v. Finch, Rhinehart v. Finch, and Dean v. Gardner.
- Headnote 2
The Secretary denied the appellant’s 1964 claim because no new and material evidence was presented and the appellant was not disabled before March 31, 1964.
- Headnote 3
After reviewing the record, the court found substantial evidence supporting the Secretary’s rulings and therefore affirmed them.
- Headnote 4
The district court’s judgment was affirmed because the proper standard of review was applied and the record contained substantial evidence.
- Headnote 5
The court held that judicial review under § 205(g) is limited to a substantial‑evidence inquiry, citing Chavies v. Finch, Rhinehart v. Finch, and Dean v. Gardner as controlling precedent.
- Headnote 6
After reviewing the record, the appellate court concluded that substantial evidence existed for the Secretary’s determinations and therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- Headnote 7
The Ninth Circuit has held that the statutory review provision confines review to the substantial‑evidence question, citing Chavies, Rhinehart, and Dean.
- Headnote 8
The appellant’s 1964 claim was rejected because the record showed no new and material evidence to justify reopening the 1962 denial.
- Headnote 9
The second denial rested on the appellant’s inability to show disability before March 31, 1964, the expiration date of his insured status.
- Headnote 10
The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment because the record contained substantial evidence for the Secretary’s determinations.
- Headnote 11
The Ninth Circuit holds that the standard of review for Social Security Act decisions is the substantial‑evidence test, citing Chavies v. Finch, Rhinehart v. Finch, and Dean v. Gardner.
Opinion
This appeal is from a judgment of the District Court in favor of the appellees in an action brought by the appellant pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)] to review the final decision of the Secretary disallowing appellant disability benefits under §§ 216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.A. §§ 416(i) and 423].
The appellant first filed a disability claim under the Social Security Act in 1962. The claim was denied by the Hearing Examiner based on a finding that appellant was not disabled on or before August 9, 1962. The Hearing Examiner’s decision was affirmed by the Secretary and a review of the decision was not sought.
Appellant filed his present claim in 1964 alleging an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity because of his physical and mental ailments. The second claim was denied by the Hearing Examiner and the Secretary on the grounds (1) that no new and material evidence had been presented to warrant a reopening of the adverse determination of appellant’s first claim, and (2) that appellant had not shown in his second application that he had become sufficiently disabled between the denial of his first application and March 31, 1964, when his disability insured status expired.
Judicial review of this matter is limited by § 205(g) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)] to a deter- initiation of whether the findings of the Secretary are supported by “substantial evidence”. Chavies v. Finch, 443 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1971); Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1971); Dean v. Gardner, 393 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1968).
After carefully reviewing the administrative record of the evidence, this court concludes that there is substantial evidence to support the ruling of the Secretary.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.