Donald P. Sigmon v. Joseph A. Califano, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 617 F.2d 41 (4th Cir. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Donald P. Sigmon v. Joseph A. Califano, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 617 F.2d 41 (4th Cir. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the general rule is one amply supported by common sense: the can consider work done by the claimant after the alleged onset of disability as tending to show that the claimant was not then disabled.”
15 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Atwell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (scd, 2020-10-01)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#9 20 C.F.R. § 404.1536 cited 1× in this case · 22 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Atwell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
D.S.C. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the general rule is one amply supported by common sense: the can consider work done by the claimant after the alleged onset of disability as tending to show that the claimant was not then disabled.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephen B.E. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
M.D.N.C. · 2026 · confidence medium
Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 42-43 (4th Cir. However, an effective and 1980) (“The general rule is one amply conservative treatment regimen is supported by common sense: the probative evidence that the ALJ must [ALJ] can consider work done by the consider.
cited Cited as authority (rule) STELLAR v. O'MALLEY
E.D. Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
(Id. at 7 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.971 ; Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 42-43 (8th Cir. 1980))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jenkins v. Heckler
D.S.C. · 1992 · confidence medium
Furthermore, in reliance upon a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Sigmon v. Cali-fano, the magistrate judge reasoned that regardless of the McDonald holding, a trial work period should be undertaken with the knowledge of the Secretary so that “its bona fides and rehabilitative purpose can be monitored.” Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 42 (4th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nappa v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human Services
E.D.N.Y · 1990 · confidence medium
The regulations contemplate that the trial work effort should be “undertaken with knowledge of the Secretary so that, among other things, its bona fides and rehabilitative purpose may be monitored.” Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 43 (4th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gormas v. Bowen
W.D. Mich. · 1989 · confidence medium
McDonald v. Bowen, 818 F.2d 559, 564 (7th Cir.1986); Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 43 (4th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Black v. Shalala
S.D.W. Va · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41 (4th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Charles P. Cieutat v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 42-43 (4th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." COLEMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
D.N.J. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
(R. 14); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 and 416.971 (“Even if the work you have done was not substantial gainful activity, it may show that you are able to do more work than you actually did.”); see also Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41 , 42–43 (4th Cir. 1980) (“The general rule is one amply supported by common sense: the [Commissioner] can consider work done by the claimant after the alleged onset of disability as tending to show that the claimant was not then disabled.” (citation omitted)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rivera v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare
S.D.N.Y. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Sigmon v. Califano, 617 F.2d 41, 43 (4th Cir. 1980); Campbell v. Califano, 483 F.Supp. 1306 (E.D.Pa.1980); McMillen v. Califano, 443 F.Supp. 1362 (N.D.N.Y.1978); Lopez v. Cohen, 295 F.Supp. 923 (S.D.Tex.1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donald P. SIGMON, Appellant,
v.
Joseph A. CALIFANO, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, Appellee
79-1117.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Mar 4, 1980.
617 F.2d 41
John E. Hall, North Wilkesboro, N. C. (Michael R. Lyon, McElwee, Hall, McElwee & Cannon, North Wilkesboro, N. C., on brief), for appellant., Wayne C. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., Charlotte, N. C. (Harold M. Edwards, U. S. Atty., Asheville, N. C., on brief), for appel-lee.
Hall, Phillips, Staker.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: D. South Carolina (1)
PER CURIAM:

Donald P. Sigmon appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare terminating social security disability benefits to Sigmon as of June 30, 1973. Sigmon argues that work done by him in the summer of 1973 qualifies as “trial work” under 42 U.S.C. § 422(c) and should not have been considered in determining whether or when his disability ceased. We disagree and affirm.

This case was earlier remanded to the Secretary for a determination whether Sig-mon’s work in July, August and September of 1973 should be considered “trial work.” If the work were found not so to qualify, we then said, the Secretary could “reaffirm his prior decision since we agree with the district court that it is supported by substantial evidence.” Sigmon v. Califano, No. 77-2180, slip. op. at 3 (4th Cir. May 1, 1978) (unpublished). On remand, the Secretary concluded that the work did not qualify as trial work because of the limitation of § 422(c) in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1536(c), which provides that “such period shall not begin . before the month in which application is filed for such benefits . . .” Sigmon did not file for disability benefits until March 20, 1974.

Sigmon now argues that this limitation of trial work in § 404.1536(c) cannot be applied as it is in conflict with § 422(c). We agree with the district court that while § 404.-1536(c) limits the application of § 422(c), it does not conflict with it.

The general rule is one amply supported by common sense: the Secretary can[*43] consider work done by the claimant after the alleged onset of disability as tending to show that the claimant was not then disabled. Brown v. Weinberger, 385 F.Supp. 780 (E.D.Mo.1974) aff’d per curiam, 520 F.2d 1010 (8th Cir. 1975). The exception to this rule contained in § 422(c) is to encourage persons whose statutory disability is in issue to try to rehabilitate themselves so that they may again engage in gainful activity. The “trial work” provision assures them that they may attempt to return to work without prejudicing determination of their period of statutory disability. But § 404.1536(c) contemplates that the trial work effort shall be one undertaken with knowledge of the Secretary so that, among other things, its bona fides and rehabilitative purpose may be monitored. This of course can only be assured after the Secretary is made aware of the existence of a claim for benefits. This is the purpose of § 404.1536(c) and we think it a valid limitation that lies well within the statutory purpose of § 422(c).

It is apparent that Sigmon’s return to his previous job months before he filed for disability benefits was not part of any formally approved rehabilitation program such as is contemplated by the statute and by the regulation. We do not believe that the Secretary’s consideration of this work in determining Sigmon’s continuing disability violates the mandate of § 422(c).

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.