shown that the plaintiff can no longer perform the work in which he has been experienced or trained. It is then incumbent upon the Secretary to show that reasonable employment opportunity is available. Bujnovsky v. Celebrezze, 343 F.2d 868 (3d Cir.) The employment opportunities must be realistic and be reasonably possible and not merely what is conceivable. Klimaszewski v. Flemming, D.C.Pa., 176 F. Supp. 927, 929; Tigner v. Gardner, 356 F.2d 647 (5th Cir.).
The testimony that jobs were available which claimant could perform through regular employment was very unrealistic. I do not believe the claimant is physically or mentally capable of being gainfully employed within the meaning of the law. An applicant need not be bedridden or completely helpless in order to fall within the definition of disability.
A job would have to be made available for the claimant where he would be able to perform very limited activities under such circumstances as he might be able to apply himself. Let us therefore be realistic. Employers do not hire persons with the complaints and disabilities which exist in this case. In other words, a job would have to be made for him, and, in this highly competitive labor field, that is just not done.
It is not consistent with reality for a strong, able-bodied man to cease work at the age of 46, rear and provide for a wife, two daughters and a son if substantial and genuine reasons did not exist for so doing. Especially since during the 31 years of said working life, claimant was a hard, regular, steady worker in those fields of employment which required the application of physical effort and the strength of the body.
The record and exhibits considered as a whole reflect a most substantial basis to require the conclusion that claimant, since February 7, 1961, has been unable to engage in any regular or continuous substantial gainful employment to provide for himself and his family the necessities of life. However, claimant's rights prior to March 21, 1966 have been fully and finally adjudicated due to his failure to secure judicial review of the previous disallowances by the Hearing Examiner and by the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration which found no such disability and denied disability insurance.
The most recent medical examinations -- August 23, 1966 by Rayford E. Wright, M.D., and October 29, 1966 by W. L. Whitten, M.D., conclusively establish that claimant's complaints are very real and there was no intent by the patient to exaggerate his condition.
If ever there was a case where disability is proven by the record as to the lack of ability of a human being to pursue and follow gainful employment of a substantial nature with regularity and definiteness, I must say this is as substantial a claim as any I have read during my 24 years as a member of the Federal Judiciary.
In each instance where the Court has discussed the facts, this will constitute the Findings of Fact. Where the Court has made reference to statutory or case law, such expressions will constitute Conclusions of Law.
After all these years it is hoped that the Social Security authorities will proceed with dispatch to give this unfortunate soul the benefits to which he is unquestionably entitled.
An appropriate order is entered.
AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 1969, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The decision of the Appeals Council should be reversed and the case remanded to the Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, with directions that the plaintiff be granted a period of disability insurance benefits in accordance with the Social Security Act, as amended.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.