Pace v. Secretary of Health, Education, & Welfare

331 F. Supp. 609, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12012
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DecidedAugust 18, 1971
DocketCiv. A. No. 68-C-335
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 331 F. Supp. 609 (Pace v. Secretary of Health, Education, & Welfare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pace v. Secretary of Health, Education, & Welfare, 331 F. Supp. 609, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12012 (E.D. Wis. 1971).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

REYNOLDS, District Judge.

This is an action pursuant to the Social Security Act, Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),1 for a review of a final order of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to old age insurance benefits under Title 42 U.S.C. § 402(a) 2 but that because of plaintiffs age those benefits were to be reduced in accordance with Title 42 U.S.C. § 402(q).3 The plaintiff [611]*611Calvin Pace claims he was born on November 9, 1902, and that therefore § 402 (q) is not applicable. The Social Security Administration maintains that Mr. Pace was born on November 10,1903, and that therefore § 402 (q) is applicable.

After an initial administrative determination that Mr. Pace was born on November 10, 1903, Mr. Pace requested a reconsideration. Upon reconsideration the initial determination was affirmed. At plaintiff’s request, a hearing was then held and the hearing examiner affirmed the initial determination. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review on October 9, 1968, and accordingly the decision of the hearing examiner became the Secretary’s final order. Mr. Pace then commenced this action. After a hearing on June 12, 1969, Judge Grubb of this court, in accordance with Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for consideration of additional evidence. Upon remand a supplemental hearing was held, and the hearing examiner again found plaintiff to have been born on November 10, 1903. On review, the Appeals Council affirmed on December 9, 1969, and that decision became the Secretary’s final order.

Both plaintiff and defendant have now moved for summary judgment. In cases such as this, this motion is the proper procedure. Covo v. Gardner, 314 F.Supp. 894, 895 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.1970). In plaintiff’s brief in support of his motion for summary judgment, he includes an affidavit of birth sworn to by an aunt and uncle on March 12, 1970. This evidence has not been previously presented to the Secretary, and this court cannot review evidence not of record before the Secretary.' Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Atteberry v. Finch, 424 F.2d 36, 39 (10th Cir. 1970). Plaintiff has not requested that this matter be remanded so that these affidavits may be considered, but in any case this evidence is not of such significance as to justify remanding the matter for good cause pursuant to § 405(g), especially when such a remand would be the second one ordered. Cf. Clow v. Gardner, 270 F.Supp. 231 (E.D.Wis.1967).

The only issue to be decided in this matter is whether Mr. Pace was born on November 9, 1902 or November 10, 1903. Once the date of birth has been determined, the parties are in agreement as to the consequences. In determining Mr. Pace’s date of birth, however, I cannot approach the question de novo; rather § 405(g) commands that any finding of fact made below shall be conclusive provided that I find it to be supported by substantial evidence. Waters v. Gardner, 283 F.Supp. 750, 752 (E.D.Wis.1968).

The plaintiff’s claim that he was born on November 9, 1902, is supported by the following evidence:

1. A copy of a delayed birth certificate filed on January 14, 1943, allegedly by plaintiff’s father, indicating plaintiff’s birth date to be November 9, 1902.

2. A copy of a delayed birth certificate of plaintiff’s sister, Ester Pace, filed on January 14, 1943, allegedly by plaintiff’s father, indicating that she was born on May 16, 1904. (If this were her true date of birth, then only six months would separate her birth from her [612]*612brother's date of birth as found by the defendant.)

3. A copy of a page from a family Bible listing births from 1874 through 1921 and showing that plaintiff was born November 10, 1902.

Evidence supporting the defendant’s determination of November 10, 1903, as the date of birth is as follows: A letter from the United States Department of Commerce setting out that the census records for 1910 taken as of April 15 indicate that plaintiff was then six years of age, and a 1936 application for a social security account number of plaintiff listing his date of birth as November 10, 1903.

The record below further indicates that plaintiff’s parents separated when he was young, and that after living with his mother’s parents he went to live with his mother and new stepfather. His mother was of the belief that plaintiff was born November 10, 1903, and prior to seeing, in 1967, the delayed birth certificate apparently filed by his father in 1943, plaintiff believed his mother to be correct. The family Bible referred to above was in custody of the second wife of plaintiff’s father. Her statement indicates that plaintiff never lived with her, that the Bible was given to her in 1909, and that sometime thereafter the entry was made by “Calvin’s older brother, Arthur Pace.”

In sum, the evidence in the record shows that plaintiff’s parents disagreed, no doubt unknowingly, as to the year of their son’s birth, and that having been raised by his mother, plaintiff, until recently, naturally enough adopted her recollection. I conclude that the Secretary’s finding that plaintiff was born on November 10, 1903, is supported by substantial evidence.

For the foregoing reasons,

It is ordered that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be and it hereby is denied.

It is further ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be and it hereby is granted.

The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, dismissing the action.

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

Related

Day v. Mathews
407 F. Supp. 834 (N.D. Illinois, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F. Supp. 609, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-v-secretary-of-health-education-welfare-wied-1971.