Task: songer_subevid

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent." Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM.
Appellant Aleja Ramirez applied for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423, claiming that asthma and arthritis made it impossible for her to work. The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare found that she had failed to establish a disability before 1963, when she last met the special earnings requirements of § 423, and denied the application. The district court affirmed, and this appeal followed.
Appellant’s claim of disability was supported only by a report by a Dr. Jose Villeneuve and by the testimony at the administrative hearing of appellant and her sister. Appellant testified at the hearing that Dr. Villeneuve had treated her since 1959, but the report indicated that he first examined her on June 18, 1969. After the hearing, the administrative law judge contacted Dr. Villeneuve to resolve the conflict. The doctor stated that while he might have seen appellant prior to 1969, he had no available record so indicating.
We agree with the district court that the Secretary’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. It is uncontested that appellant did not meet the earnings requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1), (c)(1)(B) after 1963, and yet her only medical evidence related to a period beginning in 1969. That she and her sister testified to earlier disability is not enough. Her burden was to show an impairment that was “medically determinable,” id. at § 423(d)(1)(A), (d)(3); see Reyes Robles v. Finch, 409 F.2d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 1969); and while we do not say that there may never be a case where a plaintiff can satisfy that burden without medical evidence, certainly such a case would be rare. In a case like this, calling for proof of disability some years ago as a result of such common ailments as asthma and arthritis, the secretary could insist that claimant produce “adequate medical evidence.” Stille v. Weinberger, 499 F.2d 244, 247 (6th Cir. 1974). Here, there was no medical evidence as to the period in which the earnings requirement was met, despite the ample opportunity afforded appellant to present such evidence and the efforts of the administrative law judge to secure it independently.
Appellant urges that she was prejudiced by lack of assistance of counsel at the administrative hearing. However, while appellant had a right to have retained counsel present at the hearing, the record clearly shows that she waived that right. Informed of the right to counsel by letter (in Spanish) before the hearing, she responded in writing that she did not wish to be represented. And asked at the hearing if she still wished to represent herself, she said that she did. There is nothing to indicate that appellant was in any way misled, or that her hearing was in any way unfair. See Steimer v. Gardner, 395 F.2d 197, 198-99 (9th Cir. 1968).
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B