ELL PREWITT, 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 the Secretary's decision was based on an incorrect legal principle requiring objective evidence for a medically determinable impairment.
This case is a companion to another decided the same day. The Secretary rejected the claimant's disability claim based on a legal standard that requir…
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 Medically Determinable Physical Or Mental Impairment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is a companion ease to Daniel v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1968, 390 F. 2d 32, decided this day. Here, however, the Secretary’s decision was bottomed upon an incorrect legal principle that to be “medically determinable” the impairment must be established by objective medical, clinical or laboratory evidence. In rejecting this test we have said:
But the statute does not require that disability or its cause be “substantiated objectively.” Of course, it must be “by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment.” But modern medicine is neither so scientific nor so helpless today that it either does, or must, evaluate only objective factors.
Hayes v. Celebrezze, 5 Cir., 1963, 311 F. 2d 648; accord, Ross v. Gardner, 6 Cir. 1966, 365 F. 2d 554; Bramlett v. Ribicoff, 4 Cir., 1962, 298 F. 2d 858.
As we pointed out in Daniel, the disability provisions of the Social Security Act have been amended by Section 158 (b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967, 81 Stat. 821. Disability under the Act must therefore now be determined in accordance with provisions of that statute and not in accordance with the test of disability that we enunciated in Gardner v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F. 2d 77; Bridges v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F. 2d 86 and their progeny.
It will therefore be necessary for the Secretary to reconsider the medical evidence in the light of the proper legal standard and to reconsider the vocational evidence in light of the Social Security Amendments of 1967.
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaultney v. Caspar Weinberger, 505 F.2d 943 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
Emett D. Simmons, Sr. v. Harris, 602 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
Jobie L. Chaney v. Califano, 588 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hayes v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 648 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Gardner v. Smith, 368 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Willena Ross v. Gardner, 365 F.2d 554 (6th Cir. 1966)
- Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Daniel v. Gardner, 390 F.2d 32 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Bramlett v. Ribicoff, 298 F.2d 858 (4th Cir. 1962)