Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board

¶ 116. {dissenting). I do not join the majority opinion because I disagree that the residuum rule is applicable to this case. The majority's *162application of the residuum rule is erroneous for several reasons. First, under the clear holding of Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), the residuum rule — which posits that an administrative agency cannot base factual findings on uncorroborated hearsay — does not apply to reliable, probative, documentary evidence (particularly standard medical reports) in administrative proceedings. Further, applying the residuum rule to prohibit agencies from…