Rutledge v. Celebrezze

W.D. South Carolina

Rutledge v. Celebrezze

240 F. Supp. 474, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6974

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina

DecidedApril 26, 1965

DocketCiv. A. No. 4811

StatusPublished

This text of 240 F. Supp. 474 (Rutledge v. Celebrezze) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rutledge v. Celebrezze, 240 F. Supp. 474, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6974 (southcarolinawd 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

HEMPHILL, District Judge.

Action by plaintiff to set aside a final decision by the Secretary of [475]*475Health, Education and Welfare that he was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Judicial review is limited to a determination of whether or not the Secretary’s decision is supported by “substantial evidence.” If it is so supported, it must be affirmed; however, if undue reliance has been placed upon one portion of the record to the disregard of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then the Secretary’s decision must be reversed. Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541 (4th Cir. 1964). Naturally, the Secretary has the duty to weigh all the evidence, medical and non-medical, and must resolve conflicts in the testimony. But his resolution, his interpretation, must be reasonable. See Jarrett v. Celebrezze, 233 F.Supp. 282, 285 (W.D.S.C.1964).

This Court has no authority to try the issues de novo, but reading the record as a whole is convinced that the Secretary’s interpretation of the evidence is not reasonable. This hapless plaintiff, half blind, and debilitated by a host of ailments, is simply not in such a condition as to be considered reasonably able to obtain and keep employment commensurate with his learning, skill, physical difficulties and mental infirmities. Plaintiff has plainly met all the criteria set forth in Jenkins v. Celebrezze, 335 F. 2d 6 (4th Cir. 1964).

This case is similar, not identical to a recent case decided by this Court. See Hamlet v. Celebrezze, 238 F.Supp. 676 (E.D.S.C.1965) and is considered in the light of those cases heretofore reviewed and reported by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. See also Boozer v. Celebrezze, 238 F.Supp. 701 (W.D.S.C.1964), Holland v. Cele-brezze, 238 F.Supp. 740 (W.D.S.C.1964).

The decision of the Secretary must be reversed, because not based on “substantial evidence.” Therefore, it will be reversed and the Clerk will enter judgment accordingly.

And it is so ordered.

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

HEMPHILL, District Judge.

Action by plaintiff to set aside a final decision by the Secretary of [475]*475Health, Education and Welfare that he was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Judicial review is limited to a determination of whether or not the Secretary’s decision is supported by “substantial evidence.” If it is so supported, it must be affirmed; however, if undue reliance has been placed upon one portion of the record to the disregard of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then the Secretary’s decision must be reversed. Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541 (4th Cir. 1964). Naturally, the Secretary has the duty to weigh all the evidence, medical and non-medical, and must resolve conflicts in the testimony. But his resolution, his interpretation, must be reasonable. See Jarrett v. Celebrezze, 233 F.Supp. 282, 285 (W.D.S.C.1964).

This Court has no authority to try the issues de novo, but reading the record as a whole is convinced that the Secretary’s interpretation of the evidence is not reasonable. This hapless plaintiff, half blind, and debilitated by a host of ailments, is simply not in such a condition as to be considered reasonably able to obtain and keep employment commensurate with his learning, skill, physical difficulties and mental infirmities. Plaintiff has plainly met all the criteria set forth in Jenkins v. Celebrezze, 335 F. 2d 6 (4th Cir. 1964).

This case is similar, not identical to a recent case decided by this Court. See Hamlet v. Celebrezze, 238 F.Supp. 676 (E.D.S.C.1965) and is considered in the light of those cases heretofore reviewed and reported by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. See also Boozer v. Celebrezze, 238 F.Supp. 701 (W.D.S.C.1964), Holland v. Cele-brezze, 238 F.Supp. 740 (W.D.S.C.1964).

The decision of the Secretary must be reversed, because not based on “substantial evidence.” Therefore, it will be reversed and the Clerk will enter judgment accordingly.

And it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 F. Supp. 474, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutledge-v-celebrezze-southcarolinawd-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack