# Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. August Mangifest

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · August 21, 1987 · 826 F.2d 1318

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476611

## Case

- **Full name:** DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Petitioner, v. August MANGIFEST, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** August 21, 1987
- **Citations:** 826 F.2d 1318; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11277
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hunter
- **Judges:** III, Weis, Becker, Hunter
- **Cited by:** 77 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/9476611

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that medical judgment contained in a noncomplying report may constitute substantial evidence of disability if it is reasoned and based on medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques
- finding “ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Director’s interpretation of ... regulations ... sufficiently great to preclude deference”
- finding "ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Director's interpretation... of regulations ... sufficiently great to preclude deference"

## Opinion text

JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge,
joining and concurring:
I believe that Judge Becker’s discussion in Part III. A. of the majority opinion accurately describes Supreme Court precedent on the subject of judicial deference to agencies’ regulatory interpretations. I, therefore, fully join in the majority opinion. However, I share Judge Weis’ concern — so well expressed by him — that blind deference is not an adequate substitute for sound and impartial reasoning, and, therefore, agency interpretations should be viewed with caution and handled with care.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476611. Public record. Not legal advice.