Court Opinion

ID: 9444958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:16:48.300828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:04.694766
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The record before us shows that the district court affirmed the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The record further shows that the district court dismissed Teder’s complaint. This latter action was improper under the statute quoted in the foregoing opinion, and is surplusage.
“It is further submitted that the record clearly indicates an attempt on the part of the administration, acting through the Appeals Council, to deprive the plaintiff of the benefits he had earned. It is clearly implied throughout the hearing that the Social Security Administration does not like people who deliberately go out to qualify for social security benefits. We may fairly infer that the Appeals Council decided to re*388view the decision of the Referee, principally because the claimant frankly admitted that he went to work in order to qualify for benefits.”