Richardson v. Perales

Warren E. Burger:

We’ll hear arguments next in Number 108, Richardson against Perales.

Mr . Friedman.

Daniel M. Friedman:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

This case here on the writ of certiorari to the Fifth Circuit presents an important question as to the evidence that maybe utilized by the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare in disability proceedings under the Social Security Act.

Specifically, the question is the correctness of a ruling by the Court of Appeals that written reports made by doctors found the examination of the patient which reflect the results of the examination and the doctor’s analysis and conclusions based upon that examination cannot constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of disability if, one, at the hearing before the social security authorities, the claimant objects to the introduction of this evidence.

And two, if these written doctor’s reports are contradicted by oral testimony given at the hearing by the claimant and the claimant’s doctor.

The Government has brought this case to this Court because of the serious adverse impact, it believes this rule announced by the Court of Appeals will have upon the operation of the entire social security disability program.

There's a tremendous number of these administrative hearings conducted each year in disability cases.

Last year, our figure showed that 27,000 of these hearings were held.

The hearings are conducted quite informally, they are not adversary in characters, we know the term and the examiner who presides is not an advocate of one position or the other.

He attempts to develop all the facts, both those indicating disability and both -- and those questioning disability.

Now, for as long as this program has been in effect for at least 15-years, traditionally these cases have been determined on the basis of medical reports, written reports --

Potter Stewart:

Mr. Friedman, how does it all start?

Someone has claimed disability?

Daniel M. Friedman:

Yes, let me just --

Potter Stewart:

What's the disability?

Daniel M. Friedman:

Well let me start by explaining what happened perhaps in this case.

This man filed a claim for disability in April 1966, in which he claimed that he had become disabled in September of 1965 as a result of a back injury.

Before he had actually filed his claim, he had undergone some treatment which had been unsuccessful.

And when he flied his claim, under the procedures of statutory procedures, the claim was referred by the social security agency to the state agency that handles disability problems.

In this case the Texas Agency and under the statute, the statute authorizes the secretary to enter into agreements with state agencies to handle, to process these claims originally.

The state agency then --

Potter Stewart:

And in the procedures by which they’re handled differed depending upon the state?

Daniel M. Friedman:

Well, they may vary some but the basic procedure I think is the same which is the state agency makes whatever examinations are necessary at -- the Federal Government pays for these but it sends the man out for medical examinations.

In this case, there were a series of examinations by four different doctors.

First, they sent the man to an orthopedic surgeon who conducted various tests.

Then they sent him to a neurologist, following that they also had -- I might mention before this.

They also attached to his applications were various reports from his doctors who had indicated the problems they saw.

And at an early stage -- at an earlier stage before he filed his claim, he had undergone surgery, something called a laminectomy for this pain he had at his lower back.

Harry A. Blackmun:

Would you explain there a little bit, he did have surgery?