# Thomas Williams v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · August 13, 1992 · 970 F.2d 1178

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9843072

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** August 13, 1992
- **Citations:** 970 F.2d 1178
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Hutchinson, Cowen, Garth, Sloviter, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Scirica, Nygaard, Alito, Roth
- **Cited by:** 970 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/9843072

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a claimant had not met his burden of establishing that his intellectual disability “exist[ed] before age 22” where medical reports predating the qualifying IQ result were silent regarding claimant’s intellectual capacity, even though the earlier physicians did not…
- holding that where the claimant had worked for 22 years in a steel drum factory and as a security guard for about a year, the claimant’s ability “to maintain a job for most of his adult life” called his mental retardation into doubt
- explaining that the pinnacle legal principal that applies to the assessment of all of the other standards: A district court is not empowered to weigh the evidence or substitute its conclusions for those of the ALJ
- holding that the failure to demonstrate that mental retardation onset occurred before age 22 precluded a finding of impairment despite production of evidence of a significant mental impairment
- stating that “a valid verbal scale IQ test administered by a qualified professional using the WAIS may be sufficient to establish” mental retardation under the first prong of section 12.05C

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Aug. 13, 1992.
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge; BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, and GARTH * , Circuit Judges.
*1195 The petition for rehearing filed by appellant having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9843072. Public record. Not legal advice.