Richardson v. Perales
United States Supreme Court
402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420 (1971)
- Written by Kathryn Lohmeyer, JD
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
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
Dissent (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
