William N. Stone v. Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

There was evidence before the Examiner from which he might readily have concluded that the claimant, Stone, was disabled and entitled to the benefits of the Act. There was other evidence from which he could and did conclude the opposite. Ordinarily, courts must uphold the Examiner’s conclusion if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g). The underlying postulate is that the Examiner has weighed the evidence and made his judgment with an impartial mind.

The Examiner’s own opinion, however, leaves me with the distinct feeling that he approached this claim with a jaundiced…