Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Richardson v. Perales

United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 389 (1971)


Facts

Pedro Perales (plaintiff) filed a claim for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., which was administered by the secretary of health, education, and welfare (Secretary) (defendant). After Perales’s claim was denied, he requested a hearing before the Secretary. The administrative record developed at the hearing included testimony by Perales and his doctor, both of whom maintained that Perales was wholly and permanently disabled by a back injury. However, contradictory medical reports indicated that Perales’s treating neurosurgeon and other medical specialists had concluded that his condition was not disabling. Perales made various objections to the rules of evidence applied at the hearing, arguing that the evidence introduced into the record was inadmissible and therefore violated procedural due process. The hearing examiner overruled the objections and concluded that Perales was not disabled under the Act. The appeals council affirmed, and Perales sought review in federal district court. The district court remanded the case to the hearing examiner. The court of appeals affirmed the remand. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Douglas, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.