Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Wright-Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided February 23, 2010No. 08-5830Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHelene N. White, Circuit Judge
I join the majority’s discussion and disposition of Wright-Hines’ first, second and fourth claims. I would, however, remand to the ALJ to fully develop the record with regard to Wright-Hines’ past relevant work.
Social security proceedings, unlike judicial ones, are inquisitorial, not adversarial. See, e.g., Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 110—11, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000) (plurality). Consequently, the ALJ has a “duty to investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits.” Id. at 111, 120 S.Ct. 2080 (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Sims v. ApfelSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakley v. Commissioner of Social SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
- Jack D. Lashley v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Carreno v. Commissioner of Social SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004