Vernell Parks v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Sec'y of Health & Human Resources, Defendant, 614 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Vernell Parks v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Sec'y of Health & Human Resources, Defendant, 614 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dudley v. Astrue (ca5, 2007-07-30) · Strongest negative: L.G. CAULDER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee (ca11, 1986-06-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#5 42 U.S.C. § 223 cited 1× in this case · 30 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" L.G. CAULDER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
11th Cir. · 1986 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980). 4 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dudley v. Astrue
5th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
“Because of the lengthy history of this case as it has wound its way through administrative channels and judicial appeals, we urge the [Commissioner] to expedite reconsideration of this matter, giving final resolution of [Dudley’s] claim highest priority.” Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 85 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walters v. Barnhart
M.D. Ala. · 2001 · confidence medium
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980): The Secretary, as part of her answer to the suit, must file with the court a certified copy of the transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Halray Harman v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
9th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harman v. Apfel
9th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joyce A. Stewart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
6th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Christine Floyd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elmer Bowen v. Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services
4th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Since the evidence of this current deterioration is "highly relevant[ ] [and] probative, [it] must be considered before a rational determination of disability can be made." Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84-85 (5th Cir.1980) (remanded on new medical evidence, not properly before the court, related to previously introduced evidence on dizziness). 12 Since we "may not grant disability benefits on the basis of newly discovered evidence," Mitchell, 699 F.2d at 188 , and because the ALJ failed to properly consider Bowen's subjective degree of pain, we vacate the judgment of the district court and re…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles Jones v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services
6th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the record on appeal shall consist of those papers and documents filed in the district court. 22 The proper course for requesting that this case be remanded to the Secretary, see Park v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980), was not followed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barbarine CARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84-5 (5th Cir. 1980); cf. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.987 (a), 404.989(a)(1). 16 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mary J. Dorsey v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services
5th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
This Court has repeatedly observed that “[t]he Social Security Act is to be broadly construed and liberally applied.” Williams v. Califano, 590 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir.1979) (quoting Cutler v. Weinberger, 516 F.2d 1282, 1285 (2d Cir.1975)). 10 See also Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84-85 (5th Cir.1980); Taylor v. Harris, 505 F.Supp. 153, 154 (E.D.Tex.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wynn v. Schweiker
W.D. Mo. · 1983 · confidence medium
Poe v. Harris, 644 F.2d 721, 723 (8th Cir.1981); Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" McQueen v. Apfel
5th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84-85 (5th Cir. 1980). -14- 14
discussed Cited "see" Orie W. McQUEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee (2×)
5th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84-85 (5th Cir.1980)
cited Cited "see" Michael Karlskin v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services
6th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Hilliard v. Schweiker
D. Mont. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Park v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Murray v. Schweiker
D. Mont. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Park v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Talifson v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
D. Mont. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see" Henry Chaney v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267, 1273 (5th Cir. 1980), Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83, 84-85 (5th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Harris, 612 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1980); Mann v. Gardner, 380 F.2d 182, 187 (5th Cir. 1967). 4 .
discussed Cited "see" Rodriguez v. Schweiker
S.D.N.Y. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83 (5th Cir. 1980) (medical evidence outside the administrative record cannot constitute grounds for reversing Secretary’s denial of benefits; but where evidence is relevant and probative, case should be remanded to Secretary for reconsideration in light of new medical reports); Scott v. Califano, 462 F.Supp. 240 (N.D.Ill.1978) (remand ordered where administrative record on disability claim was compiled while plaintiff was appearing pro se and newly acquired evidence was obtained after the hearing through the efforts of counsel).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Patricia A. Mitchell v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services
4th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83 (5 Cir.1980); Kemp v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 967 (9 Cir.1975). *189 We think that the report of Claimant’s hospitalization in June 1982 justifies a remand.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Taylor v. Harris
E.D. Tex. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Parks v. Harris, 614 F.2d 83 , 84-85 *155 (5th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Harris, 612 F.2d 993, 998-99 (5th Cir. 1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vernell PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Patricia Roberts HARRIS, Secretary of Health and Human Resources, Defendant-Appellant
79-3551.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 20, 1980.
614 F.2d 83
Martha Joe Stroud, Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Joseph S. Friedman, Trial Atty., Dept. of HEW, Office of Gen. Counsel, Social Security Div., Baltimore, Md., for defendant-appellant., John G. Heike, Dallas Legal Services Foundation, Inc., Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Ainsworth, Fay, Per Curiam, Randall.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The Secretary of Health and Human Resources (formerly the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) appeals the district court’s award of disability benefits to the appellee, Vernell Parks, contrary to the Secretary’s determination that Parks is not in fact disabled. Because the district court relied on evidence outside the record of the administrative proceedings in awarding benefits in this case, we vacate the district court’s decision and remand the case to the Secretary for reconsideration.

Parks filed a claim on July 7, 1976 for a period of disability and for disability insurance benefits under sections 216(i) and 223 of Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. He alleged he became disabled as of February 1975, primarily as a result of the loss of his left arm. He also complained of high blood pressure, diabetes, and spells of dizziness. The application was denied by the Office of Disability Operations of the Social Security Administration. Parks then took his claim before an administrative law judge, who also concluded that plaintiff was not disabled. The administrative law judge’s decision became the final decision of the Secretary when it was approved by the Appeals Council on February 28, 1979.

Parks then brought the present suit in district court seeking judicial review of the[*84] adverse action of the Secretary, as authorized by the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Attached to a motion for summary judgment in this action, Parks offered additional evidence of his disabilities which had not been presented to either the administrative law judge or the Appeals Council. This evidence consisted of several medical diagnostic reports and a hospital discharge summary dated April 5, 1979 which diagnosed Parks as suffering from sleep apnea syndrome. During the administrative proceedings, Parks had repeatedly complained of dizziness, blacking out, and suddenly falling asleep. He testified that if he was required to remain sitting for any period of time he would fall asleep. The vocational expert who appeared before the administrative law judge testified that if Parks indeed had a sleep disorder which resulted in uncontrollable somnolence he would not be able to engage in any substantial gainful activity. Sleep apnea syndrome, which in Parks’ case results in cessation of air exchange at the nose and mouth for 15 to 40 seconds every 45 to 50 seconds during his sleep, is a serious sleep disorder that can result in uncontrollable somnolence during the day.

The district court, in awarding benefits to Parks, first held that there was no substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge’s finding that Parks had never voiced concern about sleepiness to treating physicians. The court then concluded that “based on the evidence already in the record and the evidence marked as ‘exhibit I’ ” [the new diagnostic tests] Parks was disabled as he was unable to “engage in. any substantial gainful activity.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).

On appeal, the Secretary contends the district court erred in not affirming her decision since it was based on substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and also contends the court erred by ordering payments without taking into consideration the five-month waiting period for entitlement to payments contained in 42 U.S.C. § 223(d)(3). We need not labor these points, however, since the Secretary’s third contention — that the court erred in basing its decision on evidence outside the administrative record — requires that we vacate the district court’s decision and remand the matter to the Secretary for her further consideration.

Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sets forth the procedure for judicial review of the final decisions of the Secretary. The statute requires that suit be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides. The Secretary, as part of her answer to the suit, must file with the court a certified copy of the “transcript of the record including the evidence upon which the findings and decision complained of are based.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court then has the authority to review the Secretary’s decision “upon the pleadings and transcript of the record.” Id. The medical evidence of Parks’ sleep disorder relied upon by the district court in awarding benefits to Parks was outside the administrative record and therefore not properly before the court. Later provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) establish the procedure for handling evidence arising after the conclusion of the administrative proceedings:

The court . . . may, at any time, on good cause shown, order additional evidence to be taken before the Secretary, and the Secretary shall, after the case is remanded, and after hearing such additional evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or its decision, or both, and shall file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in modifying or affirming was based. Such additional or modified findings of fact and decision shall be reviewable only to the extent provided for review of the original findings of fact and decision.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added).

Under the circumstances the district court should have remanded the case to the Secretary, directing that she review the case in light of the additional medical evidence presented by Parks. The new evidence of Parks’ medical condition is highly[*85] relevant, probative, and must be considered before a rational determination of his disability status can be made. Williams v. Califano, 590 F.2d 1332, 1334 (5th Cir. 1979). We therefore vacate the opinion of the district court and remand the case to the Secretary for consideration of all evidence relating to Parks’ disability, especially that relating to the claimed sleep disorder. Because of the lengthy history of this case as it has wound its way through administrative channels and judicial appeals, we urge the Secretary to expedite reconsideration of this matter, giving final resolution of this claim highest priority.

VACATED AND REMANDED.