Flaviana B. Noveda v. Honorable Elliott L. Richardson

D.C. Circuit

Flaviana B. Noveda v. Honorable Elliott L. Richardson

475 F.2d 993, 154 U.S. App. D.C. 409

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1973

Docket71-2061

StatusPublished

This text of 475 F.2d 993 (Flaviana B. Noveda v. Honorable Elliott L. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flaviana B. Noveda v. Honorable Elliott L. Richardson, 475 F.2d 993, 154 U.S. App. D.C. 409 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM;

Appellant applied for parent’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Her claim was denied by the Secretary of HEW and his action was affirmed by the District Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with directions on the basis of our decision in Radlinska v. Secretary, HEW, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 200, 454 F.2d 1043 (1971), a holding subsequent to the ruling of the District Court. The Secretary gave principal reliance to a statement made by appellant on her first application in 1959. Appellant, aged 73, is an impoverished, illiterate widowed mother who was apparently confused at the time the statement was recorded for her. When her answer is properly discounted in the light of Radlinska, supra, and the record as a whole, it is clear that she received sufficient support for a three-month period to qualify under 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(e)(3). It is conceded a remand for reconsideration will serve no purpose for the record is complete. The case is accordingly remanded to the District Court with directions to enter an order declaring appellant’s eligibility.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM;

Appellant applied for parent’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Her claim was denied by the Secretary of HEW and his action was affirmed by the District Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with directions on the basis of our decision in Radlinska v. Secretary, HEW, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 200, 454 F.2d 1043 (1971), a holding subsequent to the ruling of the District Court. The Secretary gave principal reliance to a statement made by appellant on her first application in 1959. Appellant, aged 73, is an impoverished, illiterate widowed mother who was apparently confused at the time the statement was recorded for her. When her answer is properly discounted in the light of Radlinska, supra, and the record as a whole, it is clear that she received sufficient support for a three-month period to qualify under 20 C.F.R. § 404.350(e)(3). It is conceded a remand for reconsideration will serve no purpose for the record is complete. The case is accordingly remanded to the District Court with directions to enter an order declaring appellant’s eligibility.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 F.2d 993, 154 U.S. App. D.C. 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flaviana-b-noveda-v-honorable-elliott-l-richardson-cadc-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack