Court Opinion

ID: 9476216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:50:19.506387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:11.401040
License: Public Domain

RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the issue of Kyle’s entitlement to an “interim presumption” of disability under 20 C.F.R. § 410.490 is properly before us, but respectfully disagree with their resolution of this issue.
I would read the statute as the Secretary suggests, as requiring that no less restrictive medical criteria be incorporated into the regulations. In support of my conclusion, I would offer the reasoning of the dissent in Halon v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 713 F.2d 21 (3rd Cir.1983). In Halon, Judge Weis made a thorough analysis of the purpose and legislative history of the statutory language in question, and I find this analysis more persuasive than that of the majority here.