Chesonis v. Celebrezze

E.D. Pennsylvania

Chesonis v. Celebrezze

225 F. Supp. 477, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6468

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 8, 1964

DocketCiv. A. No. 33762

StatusPublished

This text of 225 F. Supp. 477 (Chesonis v. Celebrezze) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chesonis v. Celebrezze, 225 F. Supp. 477, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6468 (E.D. Pa. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOD, District Judge.

Plaintiff has filed this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g), seeking review of the Secretary’s denial of disability benefits to him under the Act.

We have carefully considered the entire record in this case, and after argument on respective cross-motions for summary judgment, it is our determination that this matter should be remanded to the Secretary for a rehearing.

Once again we are faced with a Social Security matter wherein the Secretary exhaustively establishes the extent of the claimant’s disability and then peremptorily concludes that 221 jobs could be performed by the claimant with his disability which “are either sedentary in character or require light exertion only.” Such an approach runs counter to the recent decisions of this Circuit which have held such evidence to be “not very meaningful.” Stancavage v. Celebrezze, 323 F.2d 373, 378 (3 Cir. 1963); Bujnovsky v. Celebrezze, D.C., 223 F.Supp. 473.

Good cause warrants a reconsideration of the plaintiff’s employment capabilities and an establishment of whether or not his disability prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity under the Act. Seldomridge v. Ribicoff, 204 F.Supp. 707 (E.D.Pa.1962).

ORDER

And now, this 8th day of January, 1964, both motions for summary judgment are denied and the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Secretary for a rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOOD, District Judge.

Plaintiff has filed this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g), seeking review of the Secretary’s denial of disability benefits to him under the Act.

We have carefully considered the entire record in this case, and after argument on respective cross-motions for summary judgment, it is our determination that this matter should be remanded to the Secretary for a rehearing.

Once again we are faced with a Social Security matter wherein the Secretary exhaustively establishes the extent of the claimant’s disability and then peremptorily concludes that 221 jobs could be performed by the claimant with his disability which “are either sedentary in character or require light exertion only.” Such an approach runs counter to the recent decisions of this Circuit which have held such evidence to be “not very meaningful.” Stancavage v. Celebrezze, 323 F.2d 373, 378 (3 Cir. 1963); Bujnovsky v. Celebrezze, D.C., 223 F.Supp. 473.

Good cause warrants a reconsideration of the plaintiff’s employment capabilities and an establishment of whether or not his disability prevents him from engaging in any substantial gainful activity under the Act. Seldomridge v. Ribicoff, 204 F.Supp. 707 (E.D.Pa.1962).

ORDER

And now, this 8th day of January, 1964, both motions for summary judgment are denied and the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Secretary for a rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 F. Supp. 477, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesonis-v-celebrezze-paed-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack