# Douglas GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · October 5, 1984 · 745 F.2d 383

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472704

## Case

- **Full name:** 7 soc.sec.rep.ser. 100, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15,548 Douglas Garner v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 5, 1984
- **Citations:** 745 F.2d 383; 7 Soc. Serv. Rev. 100; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17919
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Edwards, Brown, Dowd
- **Cited by:** 1,387 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/9472704

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “ ‘the substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight’ ”
- holding that the Court “may not try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility”
- recognizing that an ALJ’s decision must be read as a whole

## Opinion text

BAILEY BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.
I respectfully dissent.
With respect to disability benefits, I agree with the district judge that the determination of the Secretary that Garner was not disabled within the meaning of the Act as of June 30, 1981, when he was last insured for disability benefits, is supported by substantial evidence.
*392 I would, however, remand to the district court because the district court did, in ef-feet, determine that the Secretary’s finding that Garner was not disabled for a period of one year from August, 1981, is not supported by substantial evidence. Since it was not necessary for Garner to show, for purposes of SSI benefits, that he was disabled as of June 30, 1981, there appears to be no reason why the district judge should not have directed the award of SSI benefits. For this reason, it seems to me that the case should be remanded to the district court to reconsider since his conclusion is inconsistent with his finding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9472704. Public record. Not legal advice.