Ethel S. Harris v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Ninth Circuit

Ethel S. Harris v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

468 F.2d 1260

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 1972

Docket72-1777

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 468 F.2d 1260 (Ethel S. Harris v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ethel S. Harris v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 468 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 F.2d 1260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ethel-s-harris-v-elliot-l-richardson-secretary-of-health-education-and-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack