Court Opinion

ID: 9476489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:57:16.917318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:21.044858
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON,
dissenting.
I do not disagree with Judge Kennedy’s statements that “[tjhere is some merit to [appellant s] suggestion that the ability to engage in gainful activity is the ‘core’ of the medical equivalence test” and that “it is distinctly possible that there will be cases where the absence of that ability is demonstrated in such a compelling fashion that the listing becomes a mechanical and unrealistic bar to a just determination.” Majority Opinion at 774.
I must dissent in this case because Mrs. Willeford has demonstrated in “a compelling fashion” that she is unable to engage in any gainful activity. Because demonstrating inability to engage in gainful activity is the core of the Department of Health and Human Services medical equivalence test, denying Mrs. Willeford widow’s benefits solely on the basis of that test creates “a mechanical and unrealistic bar to a just determination.”
Under the rationale adopted by the Eighth Circuit in Paris v. Schweiker, 674 F.2d 707, 710 (8th Cir.1982), and the Second Circuit in Tolany v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 268, 271 (2d Cir.1985), I would reverse the district court’s order and award Mrs. Wille-ford the widow’s benefit to which she is entitled.