Legal Opinion · Dissent
Gloria MINGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 16, 1984No. 83-2475Published
1DissentChoy, Circuit Judge
The majority today completely disregards the substantial evidence standard of review enunciated by the Supreme Court in Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971), and reviews this case de novo. The majority mistakenly assumes that, because the facts are undisputed, “this is a legal issue.” The AU’s decision, however, does not rest on an erroneous understanding of the applicable California law.
In this case, the resolution of this issue “requires an inquiry that is ‘essentially factual.’ ” See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1202 (9th…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- United States v. Winston Bryant McConneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Charbonnages De France v. Frank B. Smith, Juanita Smith, Frank Smith, Jr., Smith Brothers Construction Company and Continental Coal Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
- James Sample v. Richard Schweiker , Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- American Fidelity and Casualty Company, Inc. v. The London and Edinburgh Insurance Company, Limited, and the Dominion Insurance Company, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1965
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.