Leila J. Goodman v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

448 F.2d 388
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 14, 1971
Docket71-2012
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 448 F.2d 388 (Leila J. Goodman 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
Leila J. Goodman v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 448 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court which affirmed a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, denying appellant’s application for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d), as amended. We affirm.

Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the Secretary’s denial of benefits and that she was not accorded a fair hearing at the administrative level because she was not represented by counsel.

The hearing examiner concluded that appellant was not disabled prior or at the time that she last met the insured status requirement under the Act. The evidence is substantial to warrant that conclusion and the District Court so found. The function of the reviewing court is limited. It is not to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary. Its role is to determine if the record contains substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s decision. Richardson v. Richardson, 5 Cir., 1970, 437 F.2d 109; Cooper v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1970, 433 F.2d 315; Brown v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1970, 429 F.2d 80; Rome v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 1329.

There is no merit to appellant’s contention that she was not given a fair hearing because of lack of counsel. The record shows, and the District Court found, that the applicant was fully informed of her right to obtain counsel. She decided, however, to forego this right and so indicated at the hearing. Moreover, the record shows that claimant was given a full and fair hearing and that she suffered no prejudice by the absence of counsel. See Cross v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 406, 409.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Poulin v. Heckler
591 F. Supp. 1577 (District of Columbia, 1984)
Perez v. Heckler
581 F. Supp. 1095 (N.D. Indiana, 1984)
Thomas v. Schweiker
573 F. Supp. 327 (W.D. Texas, 1983)
Rials v. Califano
520 F. Supp. 786 (E.D. Texas, 1981)
Croom v. Harris
512 F. Supp. 240 (M.D. Louisiana, 1981)
Shannon v. Califano
485 F. Supp. 939 (N.D. Texas, 1980)
Clark v. Califano
476 F. Supp. 1056 (N.D. Georgia, 1979)
Fletcher v. Califano
471 F. Supp. 317 (N.D. Texas, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
448 F.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leila-j-goodman-v-elliot-l-richardson-secretary-of-health-education-ca5-1971.