Wallace v. Bowen

869 F.2d 187 (1989)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Wallace v. Bowen

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
869 F.2d 187 (1989)

Play video

Facts

John R. Wallace (plaintiff) suffered a heart attack while working as a steel worker. He suffered a stroke one month later, which may have caused loss of vision in his right eye. Wallace applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (SSI) based on his heart condition and vision impairments. His claims were denied. Wallace sought a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). At Wallace’s hearing, Wallace testified and introduced medical reports from his doctors detailing his physical impairments. After the hearing, the ALJ sent Wallace’s medical records to two consultative physicians under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (defendant). Both physicians found that Wallace’s impairments did not meet the criteria set forth in the Social Security Act (Act). Relying on these observations from the consultative physicians, the ALJ concluded Wallace was not disabled for the purposes of the Act. Based on this conclusion, HHS then found that Wallace was not entitled to social security disability insurance benefits or to SSI. Wallace sought review of this decision. The district court upheld the decision and granted HHS’s request for summary judgment. Wallace appealed, arguing (1) that the ALJ’s reliance upon medical reports obtained after the hearing and without an opportunity for Wallace to cross-examine the reports’ authors denied him his statutory right to have a decision on his claim based on evidence adduced at the hearing and his constitutional right to due process; and (2) that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sloviter, J.)

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 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership