Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CUNNINGHAM v. RICHARDSON

July 17, 1973

Rita CUNNINGHAM
v.
Elliott RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare


Hannum, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: HANNUM

Hannum, District Judge.

 This is an action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g), brought to review a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare denying plaintiff's claim for a period of disability and for disability insurance benefits. *fn1" In accordance with the requirements of the Act, the defendant has filed a certified copy of the record developed before the Social Security Administration. Both parties have filed a motion for summary judgment, and, in the alternative, plaintiff requests that the case be remanded for further hearings.

 The central issue raised by the present motions is whether the decision of the Secretary is supported by substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence" has been described as ". . . more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971), citing, Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 L. Ed. 126 (1938).

 Section 405(g), 42 U.S.C., provides in pertinent part that:

 
"The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence shall be conclusive . . ."

 The Hearing Examiner made the following specific findings:

 
(1) The claimant last met the special earnings requirements of the Social Security Act in the quarter ending March 31, 1969. Her condition subsequent to such date is not in issue before the Hearing Examiner.
 
(2) The medical evidence does not reveal that the claimant is so impaired that she could not return to work for which she is qualified by training and experience such as the work of a packer in the food industry or a bow tier in the stationery field.
 
(3) The claimant herein is not medically precluded from performing one or more of the light or sedentary job duties described by the vocational expert at the hearing.
 
(4) The claimant is not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, as amended. (Tr. 11)

 In the Court's view, the Secretary's findings are supported by "substantial evidence," therefore, the defendant's motion will be granted and the plaintiff's motion will be denied.

 Under the Social Security Act, the claimant has the burden of demonstrating that she is under a disability as defined in the Act. See, Bittel v. Richardson, 441 F.2d 1193, 1195 (3d Cir. 1971); Robles v. Finch, 409 F.2d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 1969); Franklin v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 393 F.2d 640, 642 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.