ELMO R. JACOBS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT H. FINCH, 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 affirmed the district court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the Secretary's decision to deny Social Security disability benefits.
Appellant was denied Social Security disability benefits by the Secretary. The district court affirmed this decision. The appeal concerns whether the …
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 Burden Of Proof In Disability Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
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 con- elusion of 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.