U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1988

unempl.ins.rep. Cch 14022a John R. Tusson v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 22, 1988 · Gee, Per Curiam, Rubin, Smith

847 F.2d 284; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8498; 1988 WL 56448 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

John R. Tusson, pro se., Nancy A. Nungesser, Asst. U.S. Atty., John Volz, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Marguerite Lokey, DHHS, Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision. The 3 that cite it most often are listed here.

Shepherd v. Chater (District Court, D. Utah 1996)
Insultherm, Inc. v. Tank Insulation International, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Texas 1995)
DeVetter v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Iowa 1994)

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.

A person entitled to social security disability payments was mentally disabled and unable to apply for benefits for a number of years. When, at length, he became able to do so, and filed his application, the Secretary determined that he had been disabled from 1977 to the time he filed his application, on December 6, 1982, and awarded him a period of disability and disability benefits, with a protective filing date of November 19, 1982, the date he first inquired about benefits. This made benefits payable retroactively for twelve months prior to his protective filing date. 1 The claimant appealed, seeking retroactive benefits for the entire period during which he had been disabled, and asserting that the Secretary’s failure to award them to *285 him denied him equal protection of the law and that it was otherwise incorrect. He raises the same issues on appeal. For the reasons given by the district court, in its opinion published at 675 F.Supp. 1032 (E.D. La. 1987), we AFFIRM the district court’s summary judgment.

. 42 U.S.C. § 423(b).

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