unempl.ins.rep. Cch 14022a John R. Tusson v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 847 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
unempl.ins.rep. Cch 14022a John R. Tusson v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 847 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Insultherm, Inc. v. Tank Insulation International, Inc. (txsd, 1995-11-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Insultherm, Inc. v. Tank Insulation International, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co., 847 F.2d 284, 236 (5th Cir.1988) (if a party is added pursuant to a compulsory counterclaim, the court has ancillary jurisdiction over the claim or the party even in the absence of an independent basis for federal jurisdiction); Albright v. Gates, 362 F.2d 928, 929 (9th Cir.1966) (in case where defendant in slander action asserted counterclaims against plaintiff and additional parties, there was sufficient overlapping of factual background to characterize the counterclaims as compulsory as to the original plaintiff and new parties); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 770 F.Supp. 928, 934 (…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John R. TUSSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
88-3069.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 22, 1988.
847 F.2d 284
John R. Tusson, pro se., Nancy A. Nungesser, Asst. U.S. Atty., John Volz, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Marguerite Lokey, DHHS, Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Gee, Per Curiam, Rubin, Smith.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

A person entitled to social security disability payments was mentally disabled and unable to apply for benefits for a number of years. When, at length, he became able to do so, and filed his application, the Secretary determined that he had been disabled from 1977 to the time he filed his application, on December 6, 1982, and awarded him a period of disability and disability benefits, with a protective filing date of November 19, 1982, the date he first inquired about benefits. This made benefits payable retroactively for twelve months prior to his protective filing date. [1] The claimant appealed, seeking retroactive benefits for the entire period during which he had been disabled, and asserting that the Secretary’s failure to award them to[*285] him denied him equal protection of the law and that it was otherwise incorrect. He raises the same issues on appeal. For the reasons given by the district court, in its opinion published at 675 F.Supp. 1032 (E.D. La.1987), we AFFIRM the district court’s summary judgment.