Will Witherspoon v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

Fifth Circuit

Will Witherspoon v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

328 F.2d 311, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6349

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 17, 1964

Docket20883

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 328 F.2d 311 (Will Witherspoon v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, 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

Will Witherspoon v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 328 F.2d 311, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6349 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action the claimant appeals from a judgment of the district, court affirming the Secretary’s decision, denying the claimant’s application for-disability benefits. As this Court has-repeatedly held, a mere showing of inability to do his former work will not. entitle a claimant to disability benefits,, unless that work was the only work he’ could perform. Hicks v. Flemming, 5. Cir. 1962, 302 F.2d 470; Celebrezze v. O’Brient, 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 989. It is. clear from the record that the claimant has failed to show that the work of a coal' miner is the only work which he can. perform, especially in light of the fact that there is medical evidence that at least at the time of his application he had' a residual capacity to perform even manual labor not requiring crawling. Moreover, since the evidence shows that the-claimant, at least on the critical date,, could still perform even hard manuaL labor, it cannot be reasonably said that he’ is disabled. The Secretary’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and the district court was correct in uprholding his decision.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action the claimant appeals from a judgment of the district, court affirming the Secretary’s decision, denying the claimant’s application for-disability benefits. As this Court has-repeatedly held, a mere showing of inability to do his former work will not. entitle a claimant to disability benefits,, unless that work was the only work he’ could perform. Hicks v. Flemming, 5. Cir. 1962, 302 F.2d 470; Celebrezze v. O’Brient, 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 989. It is. clear from the record that the claimant has failed to show that the work of a coal' miner is the only work which he can. perform, especially in light of the fact that there is medical evidence that at least at the time of his application he had' a residual capacity to perform even manual labor not requiring crawling. Moreover, since the evidence shows that the-claimant, at least on the critical date,, could still perform even hard manuaL labor, it cannot be reasonably said that he’ is disabled. The Secretary’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and the district court was correct in uprholding his decision.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 F.2d 311, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/will-witherspoon-v-anthony-j-celebrezze-secretary-of-health-education-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack