Richardson v. Perales
- Decided
- May 3, 1971
- Docket
- 108
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 22,864 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that Social Security claimant who had failed to subpoena doctor could not complain that, he was denied right to cross-examination — Kenneth R. McDonald v. City of Corinth, Texas Don Brooks Robert Capewell Lorna Kithil Shirley Spellerberg Kevin Tapply (1996)
- holding that strict rules of evidence do not apply to social security hearings “so as to bar the admission of evidence otherwise pertinent” — H.C., on behalf of M.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School District (2013)
- recognizing that medical advisers could, but were not required, to be used in explaining complex medical problems to the examiner — Frank v. Barnhart (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*390] Me. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1966 Pedro Perales, a San Antonio truck driver, then aged 34, height 6' 11", weight about 220 pounds, filed a claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Sections 216 (i) (1), 68 Stat. 1080, and 223 (d)(1), 81 Stat. 868, of that Act, 42 U. S. C. § 416 (i) (1) and 42 U. S. C. § 423 (d)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. V), both provide that the term “disability” means “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . ,”[1] Section 205 (g), 42 TJ. S. C. §405 (g), relating to judicial review, states, “The findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”
The issue here is whether physicians’ written reports of medical examinations they have made of a disability claimant may constitute “substantial evidence” supportive of a finding of nondisability, within the § 205 (g) standard, when the claimant objects to the admissibility of those reports and when the only live testimony is presented by his side and is contrary to the reports.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.