Generally
Resources in this Category
| Title | Date | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Dolbashian V. Sec'y HHS Although claimant's profit was not significant and may be attributable in part to the gratuitous assistance he received from others, this does not prevent a finding that the activity was gainful and that profit resulted in part from his efforts. Supervisory, managerial, advisory or other significant personal services rendered by self-employed individuals demonstrate an ability to engage in substantial gainful activity. Performance on a part-time basis did not preclude a finding that the work was substantial. Substantial gainful activity was defined as that which involves the performance of significant physical or mental duties for profit even if no profit is realized. The conclusion that someone is performing substantial gainful activity does not necessarily mean that the individual was at fault for receiving the payments for which he was not eligible. The regulations specify that whether someone is at fault depends upon the particular circumstances-circumstances which, in this case, the ALJ did not examine. Remand for further consideration of issue of fault, with instruction that "although the ALJ concluded previously that reimbursement would not defeat the purpose of the act or be against equity and good conscience, he should reconsider these issues on remand if he finds that appellant was not at fault." | 1/1/1982 | ||
| Geoffroy V. HHS Court gives qualified approval to Grids as valid exercise of Secretary's statutory authority. Secretary may, using Grids, take administrative notice that substantial gainful work existed in the national economy for a person with claimant's impairment, background, age and education. Where a claimant presents a prima facie case of disability-i. e., that he can not engage in his previous type of employment-it is the Secretary's responsibility to establish that the claimant can engage in alternate employment and that such employment exists. | 1/1/1981 | ||
| Rose v. Sec’y HHS, No. 86-1010, 802 F.2d 442 Transportation to Work. At Step 4, test is whether claimant has ability to return to past relevant work performed at substantial gainful activity level. Past insubstantial activity cannot demonstrate an ability to perform SGA. Available at DLC. Deference owed to ALJ’s credibility determination, but Appeals Council can overturn ALJ credibility determination if not supported by substantial evidence. Remand. Eligibility for Disabled Adult Child benefits requires that disability began before age 22 and continued until 6 months prior to application for benefits. Past insubstantial work cannot demonstrate an ability to perform SGA. Secretary's conclusion that claimant with schizophrenia is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant's ability to travel is "weak evidence" of a capacity to work, especially in light of repeated hospitalizations. The conclusions of two doctors that claimant can work are not persuasive, when the doctors' analysis consist of "four checkmarks on a standard form with an additional line or two of 'comments' at the bottom." | 9/22/1986 | ||





