U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1960

John Kraynak v. Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided October 24, 1960 · Biggs, Hastie, Forman

283 F.2d 302 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Frank A. Conte, Washington, Pa., for appellant., Herbert E. Morris, Washington, D. C. (George Cochran Doub, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hubert I. Teitelbaum, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Brill v. Celebrezze (District Court, E.D. New York 1964)
Tabitha Mattei v. Commissioner Social Security (3d Cir. 2023)
McKay v. Gardner (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1965)
Simmons v. Celebrezze (District Court, E.D. South Carolina 1964)
Boozer v. Celebrezze (District Court, W.D. South Carolina 1964)
Lippert v. Ribicoff (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1963)
Robertson v. Ribicoff (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1963)
Edwards v. Celebrezze (District Court, W.D. South Carolina 1963)
McCord v. Celebrezze (District Court, W.D. South Carolina 1963)
Janek v. Celebrezze (District Court, D. New Jersey 1963)
Meola v. Ribicoff (District Court, S.D. New York 1962)
Hilbert v. Flemming (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Section 416(i) (1) of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620 (1935) as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., provides that the term “disability” shall mean “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment * * * ”. The evidence relating to the issue of whether this claimant was disabled within the terms of the definition stated above was carefully examined and weighed by the trial judge and his conclusions are supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. We therefore cannot set them aside even though we were to reach a different result approaching the matter de novo. The judgment will be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.