Lewis, Mamie A. v. Califano, Joseph, Jr., Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (d.c. Civil No. 78-0861) (1980)

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, at 76 (3d Cir. 1980); Gober v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 772, 777 (3d Cir. 1978).

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980) 6 The majority opinion properly does not style this conclusory statement as a finding of fact, as it could not.

Sec. 405 (g) promulgates that "[t]he findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." Courts have defined "substantial evidence" as " 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,' " Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); see also, Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir.1981), pet. for reh. den., 650 F.2d 481 (3d Cir.1981…

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1980); 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).

“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasoning mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir.1981) (citing Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980) and 42 U.S.C. s 405 (g)).

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

See Redmond, 574 F.2d at 901 n. 12; cf. Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 77-81 (3d Cir.1980) (using free exercise standards for determining whether religious belief is a "justifiable cause" for declining surgery under the Social Security regulations).

See Redmond, 574 F.2d at 901 n. 12; cf. Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 77-81 (3d Cir.1980) (using free exercise standards for determining whether religious belief is a “justifiable cause” for declining surgery under the Social Security regulations).

See also Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir.1981); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980). 3 .

Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970 (3d Cir.1981); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1980).

(Gillette v. United States (1971) 401 U.S. 437, 454 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 168, 183 , 91 S. Ct. 828 ]; Lewis v. Califano, supra, 616 F.2d at p. 78 [“The establishment clause requires the government to extend the same benefits it currently extends to Christian Scientists ... to all individuals who sincerely believe in faith healing”]; Developments in the Law: Religion and the State (1987) 100 Harv.L.Rev. 1606, 1738 [“The only legislative accommodations that can withstand establishment …

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980) (finding that the plaintiff had submitted substantial evidence of her disability by submitting “the report of Dr. Clayton, who was hired by the Dauphin County Board of Assistance to determine whether claimant was disabled in regard to her obtaining welfare benefits.

“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasoning mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir.1981) (citing Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980); 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g)).

Choosing to spend one’s money in alternative ways is not “an. acceptable reason.” Cf. Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 77 (3rd Cir.1980) (refusing to undergo surgery to remove tumor due to religious belief in faith healing was “acceptable reason”); Nichols v. Califano, 556 F.2d 931, 932 (9th Cir.1977) (claimant not unjustified in refusing third surgery when prior surgeries had been unsuccessful in correcting condition, and third operation not advised by family physician).

See Ortiz v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 890 F.2d 520, 524-25 (1st Cir.1989) (per curiam); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

Indeed, the Third Circuit in Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3rd Cir.1980), held that another agency’s finding that the claimant cannot work was entitled to substantial weight and sustained the claimant’s initial burden of proving a disability.

The Supreme Court has defined “substantial evidence” to be “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 , 59 S.Ct. 206, 216 , 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980); Fowler v. Califano, 596 F.2d 600, 603-04 (3d Cir.1979); Brown v. Schweiker, 562 F.Supp. 284, 288-89 (E.D.Pa.1983).

In reviewing findings of disability, any findings of fact of the Secretary must be accepted as conclusive by the reviewing court if supported by substantial evidence, Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980), which has been defined as “more than a mere scintilla ... such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971).

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

See, e.g., Falcon v. Heckler, 732 F.2d 827, 831 (11th Cir.1984); Rodriguez v. Schweiker, 640 F.2d 682, 686 (5th Cir.1981); Lewis v. Califano. 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

Plaintiff has met the test for religious sincerity set forth in Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 77-81 (3d Cir.1980). (40) Plaintiff also has met the remaining prima facie requirements.

The AU’s opinion of claimant’s medical condition based upon his personal observation is not to be counterpoised against the uncontradicted opinions of medical experts, see Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir.1980); accord Kelly v. Railroad Retirement Board, 625 F.2d 486, 494 (3d Cir.1980), because lay observations are an inherently unreliable basis for medical conclusions.

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir.1980).

On review of the Secretary’s decision by this Court, any findings of fact made by the Secretary must be accepted as conclusive provided that they are supported by substantial evidence, that is by “such relevant evidence as a reasoning mind might accept as adequate to support a conclu-. sion.” Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3 Cir.1981), citing Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3 Cir.1980); 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).

Although the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected undue reliance on personal observations in contradiction to medical evidence, see Kelly v. Railroad Retirement Board, 625 F.2d 486 (3d Cir.1980); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir.1980), it has also recognized that “physical appearance may be a factor to consider.” Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d at 76 .

For the reasons discussed below, I shall recommend that the cross-motions be denied and that this matter be remanded to the Secretary for further consideration. 1 *44 On review of the Secretary’s decision by this Court, any findings of fact 2 made by the Secretary must be accepted as conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence, that is, by “such relevant evidence as a reasoning mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 70…

Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

It means such relevant evidence as a reasoning mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. *1101 Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970 (3d Cir. 1981), quoting from Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1980).

Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970 (3d Cir. 1981), quoting from Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1980).

Kelly v. Railroad Retirement Board, 625 F.2d 486, 494 (3d Cir. 1980); Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir. 1980); Gober v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 772, 777 (3d Cir. 1978).

See also: Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir. 1980).

The Third Circuit has stated that a doctor’s finding that a claimant is disabled is entitled to “substantial weight.” Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1980).

See, e.g., Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir.1980).

See, e.g., Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir.1980).

See also Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1980); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir. 1979).

Jones v. Schweiker, 524 F.Supp. 739, 741 (N.D.Ala.1981); see Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

Sept. 1, 2015) (citations omitted); see Kane v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 1130, 1135 (3d Cir. 1985) (“Such a determination by another government agency is entitled to substantial weight.” (citing Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1980))).2 “District courts in this Circuit have . . . found reversible error where ‘the ALJ rejected the V.A. determination solely on the differences between the standard for disability between the V.A. and the SSA, with no analysis of the facts,’…

See Clark v. Barnhart, 206 F. App’x 211, 214 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Lewis »v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1980)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504 .

Compare Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73 (3d Cir.1980) (holding in a case where the court was reviewing a disability determination by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare that the agency finding must be accepted as conclusive if supported by substantial evidence).

Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 , 59 S.Ct. 206 , 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)); see also Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 , 59 S.Ct. 206, 217 , 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)); see also Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

See Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980); Fowler v. Califano, 596 F.2d 600, 603-604 (3d Cir.1979).

See, e.g., Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-7 (3d Cir.1980).

See Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76-77 (3d Cir. 1980).

See also Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1980). 5 .

See also Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir.1980).

See Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1980); Jones v. Mathews, 533 F.2d 308 (5th Cir. 1976).

See Lewis v. Califano, 616 F.2d 73 at 76 (3d Cir. 1980); Fowler v. Califano, 596 F.2d 600, 603 (3d Cir. 1979).