Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Joe Ward v. Abraham A. Ribicoff, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

309 F.2d 157

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1962-10-29
Topic: general

ORDER. This cause came on to be heard on the briefs, record, and argument of counsel, appellant seeking review of the District Court in its affirmance of an administrative decision by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare denying appellant’s application for a period of disability and for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) (1) (A) and 423, as amended; AND IT APPEARING from the record as a whole that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that appellant did not have “any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or of long-continued and indefinite duration”, Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as amended; AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that the finding aforesaid precludes *158 the necessity of an administrative showing of gainful work which the appellant was capable of doing and the availability of any such work, Bradey v. Ribicoff, 298 F.2d 855 (C.A.4) 1962; cert. denied 370 U.S. 951, 82 S.Ct. 1601, 8 L.Ed.2d 817, 1962; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the District Court be affirmed in the granting of summary judgment on the ground that there was substantial evidence to support the administrative determination herein.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Joe Ward v. Abraham A. Ribicoff, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 18 opinions

WARD v. RIBICOFF,309 F.2d 157(6th Cir. 1962)

Joe WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Abraham A. RIBICOFF, Secretary of

Health, Education, and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14844.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

October 29, 1962.

James N. Hardin, Greeneville, Tenn. (Swingle Hardin, Greeneville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.

Stanley M. Kolber, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., John M. Reddy, U.S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.

Before McALLISTER and WEICK, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.

ORDER.

This cause came on to be heard on the briefs, record, and argument of counsel, appellant seeking review of the District Court in its affirmance of an administrative decision by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare denying appellant's application for a period of disability and for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, Title42 U.S.C. § 416(i) (1)(A) and423, as amended;

AND IT APPEARING from the record as a whole that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that appellant did not have "any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or of long-continued and indefinite duration", Title42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as amended;

AND IT FURTHER APPEARING that the finding aforesaid precludesPage 158the necessity of an administrative showing of gainful work which the appellant was capable of doing and the availability of any such work, Bradey v. Ribicoff,298 F.2d 855(C.A.4) 1962; cert. denied370 U.S. 951,82 S.Ct. 1601,8 L.Ed.2d 817,1962;

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the District Court be affirmed in the granting of summary judgment on the ground that there was substantial evidence to support the administrative determination herein.Page 176