Joseph C. Grant v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Fifth Circuit

Joseph C. Grant v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

445 F.2d 656, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9232

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1971

Docket28902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 445 F.2d 656 (Joseph C. Grant v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph C. Grant v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 445 F.2d 656, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9232 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Under the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed.2d 842, decided May 3, 1971, the conclusion of the District Court that the testimony of Dr. C. W. Williams, the orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. R. C. Hardy, the neurosurgeon, did not constitute substantial evidence was error. Therefore, the Secretary’s determination, being supported by substantial evidence, must be affirmed, even if there was also substantial evidence which may have supported a finding in favor of the claimant Grant. Moreover, the resolution of any conflict in the evidence, including conflicting medical opinions, as in the case at hand, and the determination of questions of credibility of the witnesses are not for the court; such functions are solely within the province of the Secretary. Martin v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 793; Stillwell v. Cohen, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 574, 575-576.

The motion of the defendant, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, should be granted; and the motion of the plaintiff (claimant) for summary judgment should be denied.

Reversed with directions.

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

PER CURIAM:

Under the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed.2d 842, decided May 3, 1971, the conclusion of the District Court that the testimony of Dr. C. W. Williams, the orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. R. C. Hardy, the neurosurgeon, did not constitute substantial evidence was error. Therefore, the Secretary’s determination, being supported by substantial evidence, must be affirmed, even if there was also substantial evidence which may have supported a finding in favor of the claimant Grant. Moreover, the resolution of any conflict in the evidence, including conflicting medical opinions, as in the case at hand, and the determination of questions of credibility of the witnesses are not for the court; such functions are solely within the province of the Secretary. Martin v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1969, 415 F.2d 793; Stillwell v. Cohen, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F.2d 574, 575-576.

The motion of the defendant, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, should be granted; and the motion of the plaintiff (claimant) for summary judgment should be denied.

Reversed with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F.2d 656, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-c-grant-v-elliot-l-richardson-secretary-of-health-education-and-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack