Richardson v. Perales | |
---|---|
Argued January 13, 1971 Decided May 3, 1971 | |
Full case name | Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Perales |
Citations | 402 U.S. 389 (more) 91 S. Ct. 1420; 28 L. Ed. 2d 842; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 103 |
Case history | |
Prior | Perales v. Sec'y of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 288 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. Tex. 1968); affirmed and remanded sub nom. Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1969); rehearing en banc denied, 416 F.2d 1250 (5th Cir. 1969); cert. granted sub nom., Finch v. Perales, 397 U.S. 1035 (1970). |
Holding | |
Dr. Leavitt's interpretation of the medical data was acceptable evidence in an agency hearing, even if it would have been inadmissible under rules of evidence applicable to court procedure. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Harlan, Stewart, White, Marshall |
Dissent | Douglas, joined by Black, Brennan |
Laws applied | |
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 556(d), Social Security Act |
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act.[1]