ETHEL S. HARRIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, DEFENDANT-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 appellant's disability benefits claim was properly denied as her rights were not vested prior to the 1967 amendments and there was substantial evidence supporting the Secretary's finding of no disability before the earnings requirement lapse.
Appellant sought disability benefits under the Social Security Act, arguing that amendments enacted after her disability arose should not apply. The S…
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 Denial Of Disability Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant is appealing the decision of the District Court to grant the appellee summary judgment in the appellant’s motion for review of a denial of disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416 and 423.
Appellant contends that the 1967 amendments to the Social Security Act ought not to be applied to her since her disability arose before those amendments were enacted and thus served to divest her of a vested right in property without due process. These rights are not vested and do not become vested until one has actually established his eligibility. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960); King v. Finch, 428 F. 2d 709 (5th Cir. 1970). Appellant having had no rights lost by those amendments has no right to challenge them.
There was substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s finding that appellant was not disabled prior to December 31, 1972, the last date on which she met the necessary earnings requirements. This being the only question open to us on review (42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), and Harmon v. Finch, 460 F. 2d 1229 (9th Cir. 1972)), we affirm the decision of the District Court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1960)
- Hermione King v. Finch, 428 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Hudson D. Harmon v. Finch, 460 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir. 1972)