# Leonard P. Stuckey v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · November 21, 1973 · 488 F.2d 904

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460100

## Case

- **Full name:** Leonard P. STUCKEY, Appellant, v. Caspar W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 21, 1973
- **Citations:** 488 F.2d 904
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Merrill
- **Judges:** Browning, Chambers, Choy, Duniway, Ely, Goodwin, Hufstedler, Koelsch, Merrill, Trask, Wallace, Wright
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460100

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying res judicata to bar hearings on subsequent applications for disability benefits before the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
- discussing policies underlying application of res judicata in disability benefits cases

## Opinion text

MERRILL, Circuit Judge
(with whom BROWNING, DUNIWAY, HUFSTED-LER and WALLACE, JJ., concur) concurring :
I concur in the result. The reasons advanced by Judge Ely for according respect to earlier administrative determinations on the basis of administrative res judicata provide ample grounds for affirming on the merits the decision of the Secretary to deny reopening.
However, I agree with the Second Circuit, for th.e reasons set forth in Cappadora v. Celebrezze, 356 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1966), that a limited area of judicial review has been afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the second sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (h) should not be construed to preclude judicial review; that that sentence “simply forbids attempts to review final decisions on the merits by any route other than that provided in § 405(g).” 356 F.2d at 5 . (Emphasis supplied.) Proceeding to limited review of the Secretary’s decision here, I would affirm that decision on the merits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460100. Public record. Not legal advice.