Bobbie F. Bridges v. John W. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1966)

Munslow, Lampert, Langston, Bailey, and Mattson. [7] We are advised by the Government's brief, p. 18, nn. 7 and 8, that in fiscal 1968, 515,938 disability claims were processed; that, of these, 343,628 (66.601%) were allowed prior to the hearing stage; that approximately one-third of the claims that went to hearing were allowed; and that 320,164 consultant examinations were obtained. [8] Ratliff v. Celebrezze, 338 F. 2d 978, 982 (CA6 1964); but see Miracle v. Celebrezze, 351…

Alsobrooks v. Gardner, 357 F.2d 110 (5th Cir.1966); Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir.1966).

However, in this area of administrative law, in striking contrast with all other areas, the "substantial evidence" standard is a test to be seen but not heard. 2 II. 31 The Court rests its holding on tests laid down in Gardner v. Smith, 5 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 77 , and Bridges v. Gardner, 5 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 86 . 3 These decisions distinguish away or overrule, sub silentio, the following recent Fifth Circuit decisions: Hicks v. Flemming, 302 F.2d 470 ; Celebrezze v. O'Brient…

The court is not to retry the case de novo and may not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary, Alsobrooks v. Gardner, 357 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1966); Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966).

Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966); Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964); see also Philley v. Cohen, 293 F.Supp. 1068, 1072 (N.D.

Extended to its broadest reaches, the Secretary’s position would nullify the purpose of the Act, for, unless the claimant is bedridden and incapable of any movement, there most probably is some work he physically could do, though *187 there might be no likelihood that he could successfully compete for the job.” (Emphasis supplied.) The requirements imposed in evaluating disability as set forth in Gardner v. Smith, supra, and reiterated in our more recent decisions in Harriso…

The prospective employer’s fear of absenteeism, the possibility of higher workmen’s compensation premiums, and uncertainty whether such an employee will be able to perform his work satisfactorily, are factors militating against the abstract judgment that jobs are available to this man.” Id. at 428 ; see e. g., Gardner v. Smith, 368 F.2d 77 (5th Cir. 1966); Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90-91 (5th Cir. 1966); Hilton v. Celebrezze, 367 F.2d 481 , 485n-5 (4th Cir. 1966); Wil…

There is no finding as required by our recent decisions in Gardner v. Smith, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 77 and Bridges v. Gardner, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F.2d 86 that even if claimant can perform light work there must be a reasonable opportunity *175 for him to compete in the manner normally pursued by persons seeking work for a job within his determined capabilities.

June 19, 2008) (citing Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966), inter alia).

June 19, 2008) (quoting Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966)).

However, the Court may not “abdicate its traditional judicial function, nor escape its duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are reasonable, and whether the hearing examiner applied correct legal standards to the evidence.” Id. (citing Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966) and other cases).

But a reviewing court may not, on the other hand, ‘abdicate its traditional judicial function, nor escape its duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are reasonable, and whether the hearing examiner applied correct legal standards to the evidence.’ ”) (citation omitted) (quoting Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir.1966)); Mangan v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4267496 , at *1 (N.D.

But a reviewing court may not, on the other hand, ‘abdicate its traditional judicial function, nor escape its duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are reasonable, and whether the hearing examiner applied correct legal standards to the evidence.’”’) (citation omitted) (quoting Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (Sth Cir.1966)); Mangan v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4267496 , at *1 (N.D.

The Fifth Circuit has stated that a “reviewing court may not abdicate its traditional judicial function, nor escape its duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are reasonable, and whether the hearing examiner applied correct legal standards to the evidence.” Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966) (citations omitted).

Ferrell v. Gardner, 406 F.2d 1084, 1085 (4th Cir. 1969); Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966); Kennedy v. Finch, 321 F.Supp. 303, 305 (N.D.Fla.1970); Hall v. Gardner, 286 F.Supp. 488, 490 (D.Me. 1968).

The court is not to retry the case de novo and may not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary, Alsobrooks v. Gardner, 357 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1966); Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1966); Jackson v. Richardson, supra. Nevertheless, substantial evidence required to uphold the Secretary’s findings and decision is more than a mere scintilla, and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.

See, e. g., Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1966); Colegate v. Gardner, 265 F.Supp. 98 (D.C.Ohio 1967); Evans v. Gardner, 263 F.Supp. 559 (D.C.Ark.1967) ; Spradlin v. United States, 262 F.Supp. 502 (D.C.