CHESTER I. BROUSSARD, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN W. GARDNER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, APPELLEE
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 there was substantial evidence to support the determination that the appellant's impairments did not prevent him from engaging in substantial gainful activity.
Appellant applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, which was denied by the Secretary and affirmed by the District Court. The app…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gainful Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Secretary denied appellant’s application to establish a period of disability under the Social Security Act and for disability benefits. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 405 (g), 416(i), and 423. The District Court affirmed.
We find substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole to support a determination that appellant did not establish that his mental and physical impairments, either singly or in combination, were of such severity as to preclude him from engaging in any substantial gainful actiyity. See Clinch v. Celebrezze, 5 Cir., 1964, 328 F. 2d 779, for the standard of review in the District Court and in this court. In Dodsworth v. Celebrezze, 5 Cir., 1965, 349 F. 2d 312, we pointed out that in a case involving both mental and physical impairments, the question is:
“ * * * whether in light of all the evidence it is medically demonstratable that from the operation of these mental-psychological defects on his general physical condition, it is improbable that he could obtain and hold gainful employment.”
The evidence here supports a negative answer to this question. The record discloses a back injury. It also discloses “moderate serious” mental depression leading from the back injury which prevented appellant from seeking a job. However, there was substantial medical evidence ample to support a conclusion that within the area where he would normally be expected to work jobs existed within his determined capabilities for which appellant had a reasonable opportunity to compete in the manner normally pursued by persons genuinely seeking work, Gardner v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F. 2d 77; Bridges v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F. 2d 86; Harrison v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1966, 369 F. 2d 172; Celebrezze v. O’Brient, 5 Cir., 1963, 323 F. 2d 989; but he persisted in his position of not seeking a job. This warrants the conclusion that appellant’s previous physical or mental impairment, if any, was not sufficient to prevent him from competing in the labor market or being hired to fill jobs which he could perform.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnie J. Brenem v. Harris, 621 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1980)
-
Dressel v. Califano, 558 F.2d 504 (8th Cir. 1977)
Authorities Cited
- Celebrezze v. O'Brient, 323 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Gardner v. Smith, 368 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Dodsworth v. Celebrezze, 349 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1965)
- Harrison v. Gardner, 369 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Mauldin v. United States, 328 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1964)