Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Papadakis v. Secretary of Health
April 4, 1979
JOHN PAPADAKIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Present: HONORABLE LEONARD P. MOORE, HONORABLE WILFRED FEINBERG, HONORABLE THOMAS J. MESKILL, Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was submitted by appellant pro se and by counsel for appellee.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, J., accepting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Sinclair, dated February 28, 1978, and granting judgment to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking to overturn a final determination by the Secretary denying appellant's application for disability insurance benefits and for supplemental security income benefits under sections 223 and 1614 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1382c. Judicial review of such a determination is very limited. A determination will only be overturned if it is not supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Appellant was required to show, in order to obtain the benefits sought, that he was unable
to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). See also 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Though we sympathize with appellant, it is clear that the Secretary's determination that appellant failed to make the requisite showing is supported by substantial evidence. Physicians who examined appellant found that he was not under a total disability of the order contemplated by the statute, and in fact they encouraged appellant to work. Further, a vocational expert testified before the administrative law judge that even if appellant were unable to return to this former employment as a bartender due to his dizziness, he is nonetheless capable of performing various types of sedentary work. Thus, there was substantial evidence that appellant's impairment was not so severe as to preclude him from engaging in any substantial gainful employment. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Buy This Entire Record For