Court Opinion

ID: 9449013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:52:48.78249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:39.139715
License: Public Domain

HASTIE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As a claimant for special status and relief before the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, appellant Hodgson had the burden of proving that he was unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of medically determinable physical impairment. The medical testimony that Hodgson was able to do light work, considered in the light of his failure to introduce any evidence that the community offered no employment opportunities to men in his physical condition or that employers had refused to hire him because of his restricted physical capacity, provided a substantial basis for the Secretary’s finding adverse to the claimant. In such circumstances, I think it was the duty of the district court to sustain the Secretary’s determination and it is our duty to sustain the decision of the district court. I do not see how any other result can be reached without disregarding the claimant’s burden of proof.
I would affirm on the opinion of the court below. Hodgson v. Flemming, M. D.Pa., 1961, 196 F.Supp. 659.