CARL B. OGLE, PETITIONER,
v.
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Railroad Retirement Board's findings are supported by evidence and are conclusive in the absence of fraud.
Petitioner applied for an annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act due to permanent disability from a leg amputation, heart condition, and prostate g…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Carl B. Ogle, 53 years of age and with less than twenty years of service, filed an application for an annuity under Section 2(a) (5) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228b(a) (5), which provides for an annuity to such applicants “whose permanent physical or mental condition is such that they are unable to engage in any regular employment.” His claim was based upon permanent disability due to the amputation of his leg, which was service connected, the condition of his heart, and prostate gland.
Following adverse rulings on the claim by the Bureau of Retirement Claims and the Appeals Council, the Railroad Retirement Board found that petitioner’s per manent physical and mental condition “was not shown to be such that he is unable to engage in any regular employment within the meaning of Section 2(a) (5) of the Act” and denied the claim. This review followed. 45 U.S. C.A. §§ 228k, 355(f).
The Court is of the opinion that the findings of the Board are supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud are conclusive. Lane v. Railroad Retirement Board, 6 Cir., 185 F. 2d 819; United States v. Mayfield, 10 Cir., 64 F. 2d 214; Berry v. United States, 2 Cir., 111 F. 2d 615, 617.
The Order of the Board is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duncan v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 375 F.2d 915 (4th Cir. 1967)
-
Zane F. Chandler v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd., 713 F.2d 188 (6th Cir. 1983)
-
Bertamini v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 440 F.2d 278 (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Mayfield, 64 F.2d 214 (10th Cir. 1933)
- Berry v. United States, 111 F.2d 615 (2d Cir. 1940)
- Lane v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 185 F.2d 819 (6th Cir. 1950)