Court Opinion

ID: 9472926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:15:03.385688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:13.935703
License: Public Domain

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority reverses the decision of the Secretary that the claimant failed to establish that he was disabled on September 30, 1958, the date on which he last met the special earnings requirement. In order to do so the majority relies, as it must if it is to reverse the Secretary, on the application of the familiar evidentiary rule that “once evidence is presented that a condition exists there is a presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that it continues.” Because I do not believe that such presumption applies to illness or mental illness, I dissent.
I recognize that our Court has applied a presumption of continuing disability in termination cases. Haynes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 734 F.2d 284 (6th Cir.1984). However, the basis for ap: plying a presumption that disability continues for an indefinite time in the future once there has been an adjudication that a person has been disabled for a year is significantly different from the basis for applying a presumption of continuing mental illness to establish disability initially. As the Ninth Circuit pointed out in Dotson v. Schweiker, 719 F.2d 80 (4th Cir.1983), there is more involved in the former type of presumption than the evidentiary rule that conditions once proved to exist are presumed to continue to exist. Unless the court applies such a presumption the “Secretary [would be permitted] to submit the same medical evidence to different physicians time and time again until the Secretary obtains a favorable result.” 719 F.2d at 82. The Ninth Circuit also relied on the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof and that a determination by the Secretary that a claimant is no longer disabled and that benefits must be terminated meets the definition of an “order.” Neither of these two considerations apply in the instant case. See also Patti v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1982). We are left then with reliance on the evidentiary rule.
The reason for and classification of evidentiary presumptions is succinctly set out by McCormick on Evidence § 309 (1954):
Reasons for the Creation of Presumptions: Classification of Particular Presumptions.
The reasons for the recognition of presumptions by the courts are various. First and foremost is the reason of probability. In certain recurring fact-situations it becomes accepted by the judges that the proof of fact A renders the inference of the existence of fact B so probable that it is sensible and time-saving to assume the truth of fact B until the adversary disproves it. A second ground is procedural convenience. * * * *511A third consideration is that of fairness in allocating the burden of first producing evidence upon the party who has superior means of access to the proof. * * * Fourth, notions, usually implicit rather than expressed, of social and economic policy incline the courts to favor one contention by giving it the benefit of a presumption, and correspondingly handicapping the disfavored adversary.
McCormick notes that the presumption of continuity is based on probability, and that it is usually permissive as opposed to mandatory. Wigmore makes the same observation:
Continuity: (1) In general (ownership, possession, residence, insanity, etc.). It is often said that when a person, or object, or relation, or state of things, is shown to have existed at a given time, its continuance is presumed. In reality, however, a genuine rule of presumption is seldom found; the rulings usually declare merely that certain facts are admissible, or that they are sufficient evidence for the jury’s finding (§ 2494 supra) on such issues as ownership, possession, authority, insanity, residence, and sundry other things.
9 Wigmore on Evidence § 2530, at 599-601 (1981) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original). The majority here is applying a mandatory presumption as opposed to a permissive inference.
I cannot agree that it is so probable that illness or mental illness once experienced continues thenceforth. Common experience is that conditions of illness are changeable, with the exception of physical injuries such as the shortening of a limb, or its loss. Most sick people get better. Many, many mentally ill persons recover and return to productive lives. The fact that someone was mentally ill and in need of psychiatric care five years ago does not mean that they are probably mentally ill today. There are too many persons who have recovered from serious mental breakdowns and become gainfully employed to presume that disability from mental illness ordinarily continues. Indeed, the invalidity of the presumption here is demonstrated by Dr. Harvey’s testimony that it is speculative to state what Mr. Richardson’s condition was in 1958.
The Sixth Circuit appears to have been responsible for first introducing the presumption of continuity to establish continuing disability in social security cases. In Hall v. Celebrezze, 314 F.2d 686, 688 (6th Cir.1963), the Court referred to this familiar rule of evidence in the following context:
Dr. Hoffman, a urologist, who examined Mr. Hall at the request of the Secretary on November 15, 1961, stated: “The appearance of the left kidney is consistent with chronic pyelonephritis and previous renal surgery. Impression: Moderately severe hydronephrosis left kidney with evidence of previous renal surgery and chronic pyelonephritis. The right kidney has moderately good function with slight dilation of the renal pelvis consistent with previous renal surgery.” The fact that Dr. Hoffman in 1961 found the same condition to exist with respect to the left kidney as did Dr. Blair in 1957 certainly does not disprove Dr. Blair’s diagnosis, but rather would seem to confirm it. Once a condition has been shown to exist, there is a presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that it has continued. Dr. Scott reported under date of October 4, 1961 that subsequent X-rays showed no change from his previous reports and that “Occasional urine specimens show small amounts of pus and some bacteria.”
No authority is cited for application of the presumption to cases involving a person’s physical condition. Nor was there any need to call upon a presumption. I would argue that the statement is dicta.* In Rivas v. Weinberger, 475 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Cir.1973), the Fifth Circuit merely cited Hall as its authority for applying this presumption to an illness. Once again there was no discussion as to why this evidentiary rule was applicable to a physical condi*512tion. The Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiff had rheumatoid arthritis which was steadily worsening and was disabling as of September 8, 1970. It found no evidence that the plaintiff was any better after that date, and he had testified that his disability continued to the date of hearing. As in Hall, there was thus no need to resort to a presumption in Rivas.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit in Patti merely cited the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Rivas, again without any discussion of why this presumption applies in such eases. We followed Patti in Haynes again without discussion of why the presumption of continuity should be applied in these cases. Decisions such as Haynes and Patti, (which concern the presumption that disability continues once there has been an adjudication of disability for the required period) are more properly grounded on the policy concerns explained in Dotson than on an evidentiary rule that has been applied to conditions of illness only by relying on an unconsidered scrap of dicta in Hall.
I do not believe we should extend an erroneous application of the presumption of continuity to control initial determinations of disability. Accordingly, I dissent.

 The Hall court may have used presumption to mean a permissive inference. See discussion of the word "presumption” in Sandstrom v. Mon*512tana, 442 U.S. 510, 515, 522, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 2454, 2458, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979).