EMILY L. HARVEY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELLIOTT L. RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, APPELLEE; EMILY L. HARVEY, APPELLANT, V. ELLIOTT L. RICHARDSON, 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 appellee's findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, and where evidence conflicts, the judgment must be affirmed if supported by either outcome.
Appellant applied for disability benefits and was denied. She sued in district court to review the denial, but the district court granted summary judg…
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 Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant’s application for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423 was denied. Thereafter, she instituted an action in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the ap-pellee’s decision denying her benefits. The district court, 313 F.Supp. 323, granted a motion for summary judgment and the appellant now appeals from that judgment. We affirm.
Where, as here, the evidence is in conflict, it is the function of the appellee to decide all issues of fact. Jacobs v. Finch, 421 F. 2d 843 (9th Cir. 1970). His findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, looking to the record as a whole. The same rule extends to all inferences and conclusions that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Mark v. Celebrezze, 348 F. 2d 289, 293 (9th Cir. 1965); McMullen v. Celebrezze, 335 F. 2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 382 U.S. 854, 86 S.Ct. 106, 15 L.Ed.2d 92 (1965), rehearing denied 382 U.S. 922, 86 S.Ct. 295, 15 L. Ed.2d 238 (1965).
The decision of the appellee is grounded upon the testimony of a vocational counselor, three physicians and a hospital report. This testimony is adequate to support the finding that appellant was not under a disability as defined by the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d).
True enough, the record might support a finding in the opposite direction. However, where there is conflicting evidence sufficient to support either outcome, we must affirm the judgment. Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F. 2d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 1971).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beane v. Elliot E. Richardson, 457 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1972)
-
Lauretta L. Dobbins v. Schweiker, 641 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1981)
-
Torske v. Elliot L. Richardson, 484 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Mark v. Celebrezze, 348 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1965)
- McMULLEN v. Celebrezze, 335 F.2d 811 (9th Cir. 1964)
- Rhinehart v. Finch, 438 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1971)
- Waltham Watch Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 382 U.S. 922 (U.S. 1965)
- Bridges v. Florida, 382 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1965)
- McMullen v. Gardner, 382 U.S. 854 (U.S. 1965)
- Elmo R. Jacobs v. Finch, 421 F.2d 843 (9th Cir. 1970)