Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Elmo R. Jacobs v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Elmo R. Jacobs v. Robert H. Finch, Sec’y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 421 F.2d 843 (9th Cir. 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-01-26
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant was denied Social Security disability benefits by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. But our review of the record indicates this: Upon conflicting evidence, the Secretary could have properly decided in favor of Jacobs. But it was decided the other way.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Elmo R. Jacobs v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
JACOBS v. FINCH,421 F.2d 843(9th Cir. 1970)
Elmo R. JACOBS, Appellant, v. Robert H. FINCH, Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, Appellee.
No. 24550.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
January 26, 1970.
John B. Hennessy (argued), Charles A. Lynch, San Diego, Cal., for appellant.

Ronald R. Glancz (argued), Morton Hollander, Robert M. Heier, Attys., William Ruckelhaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Harry D. Steward, U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and ELY, Circuit Judges, and FERGUSON,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant was denied Social Security disability benefits by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

But our review of the record indicates this: Upon conflicting evidence, the Secretary could have properly decided in favor of Jacobs. But it was decided the other way. On review the district court and we cannot upset the Secretary if there was substantial evidence to support his determination.

In 1968 the disability standards under the Act were amended (P.L. 90-248, Sec. 158;42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). Appellant fails to recognize the scope of the Amendment's reduction of the Secretary's burden of proof. However, we reserve the question of the effect of the 1968 Amendment. This is because we believe that there is considerable evidence to support the conclusionPage 844of the hearing examiner that appellant failed to make a showing of substantial disability which, if shown, would, according to the appellant, have then shifted the burden of proof to the Secretary as to availability of appropriate jobs. The examiner may have been mistaken (we can't say he was), but our interpretation of his findings is that he concluded there really wasn't much seriously wrong physically with appellant.

Also, we find the point about absence at the initial hearing of Veterans Administration records deprived appellant of a fair hearing to be without merit. It was appellant's burden to get them to the hearing on time.
  1. The Honorable Warren J. Ferguson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. ↩