Kennedy v. Finch

E.D. Pennsylvania

Kennedy v. Finch

317 F. Supp. 7, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10345

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 4, 1970

DocketCiv. A. No. 69-2846

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 317 F. Supp. 7 (Kennedy v. Finch) 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

Kennedy v. Finch, 317 F. Supp. 7, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10345 (E.D. Pa. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, District Judge.

This is an action under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), to review a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. The decision rendered by a hearing examiner on September 23, 1969, became the final decision of the Secretary in this case when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review on November 12, 1969. This final decision holds that plaintiff is not entitled to a period of disability or disability insurance benefits based on his application filed July 15, 1968.

It was the plaintiff's burden to show that he was disabled before September 30, 1964. The plaintiff practically concedes, as well he might, that the determination of the Secretary that there was no disability before that date is supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff urges, however, that because he was without counsel before the hearing examiner, the case should be remanded for a further hearing so that plaintiff could present his claim with the assistance of counsel. This argument is appealing on its surface, but we nonetheless feel constrained to reject it. Before the hearing the plaintiff was advised that he had a right to be represented by counsel but he stated he was prepared to go ahead without a hearing and represent himself.» “In the absence of a showing of clear prejudice or unfairness at the agency level proceedings, the lack of counsel is not a sufficient cause for remand.” Domozik v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 5 (C.A.3, 1969). See also Christopher v. Finch, 317 F.Supp. 1101 (E.D.Pa.1970). This is especially true where the claimant has affirmatively waived his right to counsel. We will therefore grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is so ordered.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, District Judge.

This is an action under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), to review a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. The decision rendered by a hearing examiner on September 23, 1969, became the final decision of the Secretary in this case when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review on November 12, 1969. This final decision holds that plaintiff is not entitled to a period of disability or disability insurance benefits based on his application filed July 15, 1968.

It was the plaintiff's burden to show that he was disabled before September 30, 1964. The plaintiff practically concedes, as well he might, that the determination of the Secretary that there was no disability before that date is supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff urges, however, that because he was without counsel before the hearing examiner, the case should be remanded for a further hearing so that plaintiff could present his claim with the assistance of counsel. This argument is appealing on its surface, but we nonetheless feel constrained to reject it. Before the hearing the plaintiff was advised that he had a right to be represented by counsel but he stated he was prepared to go ahead without a hearing and represent himself.» “In the absence of a showing of clear prejudice or unfairness at the agency level proceedings, the lack of counsel is not a sufficient cause for remand.” Domozik v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 5 (C.A.3, 1969). See also Christopher v. Finch, 317 F.Supp. 1101 (E.D.Pa.1970). This is especially true where the claimant has affirmatively waived his right to counsel. We will therefore grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 F. Supp. 7, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-finch-paed-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack