THOMSON

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By

• Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1985)
  …ce. See, e.g., Barajas v. Heckler, 738 F. 2d 641 (5th Cir.1984) (Secretary's decision that claimant’s impairment nonsevere supported by substantial evidence). This court has noted, in Lofton v. Schweiker, 653 F. 2d 215, 217 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1089, 102 S.Ct. 651, 70 L.Ed.2d 626 (1981), that the regulations allow an impairment to be found nonsevere based on medical factors alone. Lofton did not address the validity of the severity regulation but affirmed the Secretary’s denial of disability be…
• Chico v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 947 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …21, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). We also do not agree that there is a consensus among the courts of appeals with respect to the validity of the “severity” regulation. In Lofton v. Schweiker, 653 F. 2d 215 (5 Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1089, 102 S.Ct. 651, 70 L.Ed.2d 626 (1981), the court simply assumed the validity of the regulation, adding an interesting footnote with respect to the question raised by Chico, 653 F. 2d at 217 n. 1, which we reproduce in the margin.6 In [*953] McCoy v.…
• Keith v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 1089 (2d Cir. 1984)
  …characterized the validity of the severity regulation as “a close question”, 710 F. 2d at 953. We continue so to regard it. We find it rather surprising that the Secretary should again cite Lofton v. Schweiker, 653 F. 2d 215 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1089, 102 S.Ct. 651, 70 L.Ed.2d 626 (1981), and Goodermote v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 690 F. 2d 5 (1 Cir.1982), as supporting the validity of the regulation after our Chico opinion, also cited by the Government, had carefully explained thei…