Court Opinion

ID: 9473457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:30:33.971843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:32.724122
License: Public Domain

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I am in accord with the results of the majority opinion affirming the Secretary’s denial of disability benefits for claimant. However, I write separately to express my view that this circuit’s previous pronouncement in Beavers v. Secretary, 577 F.2d 383 (6th Cir.1978) does not directly conflict with the more recent case of Newsome v. Secretary, 753 F.2d 44 (6th Cir.1985).
Initially, I acknowledge that Beavers and Newsome both addressed the Appeals Council’s sua sponte review of an a.l.j.’s award of benefits. The specific issue in Newsome was one of first impression, to wit, whether the Secretary violated her own regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.970, by a sua sponte review of an a.l.j.’s decision; whereas the Beavers court never con*45sidered the impact of § 404.970. Rather, Beavers simply enunciated the general principle of law that the “statutorily-mandated deference to findings of fact runs in favor of the Secretary.” 577 F.2d at 386. In sum, since Newsome delineated the ramifications of § 404.970 on this court’s standard of review when the Appeals Council’s reversal of an a.l.j.’s decision is challenged, I forsee no difficulty in Beavers and New-some co-existing in this circuit.
In addition, I suggest that since the outcome of the instant case would be the same irregardless of whether the Beavers or Newsome standard is applied, the language in the majority opinion as to the alleged conflict between these two cases will confuse rather than assist in the resolution of future cases. Otherwise, I concur in the result.