SSR 69-6a: Rescinded 1981

SSR 69-6a

The claimant filed an application for a period of disability and

disability insurance benefits in December 1965, alleging inability to work

since 1949 because of a nervous disorder. The claimant's earnings record

showed her insured status for disability purposes expired on December 31,

1953. The evidence established that she had been gainfully employed for a

number of years and that she stopped working in 1948 when her husband

became reemployed and it was no longer necessary for her to work. There

was no evidence of a severe mental condition or of the claimant having

received medical treatment from 1948 to March 1956 when she was committed

to a mental hospital. Admission history showed severe mental disturbance

during the month preceding hospitalization. Held, claimant was not

under a disability within the meaning of the Act on or prior to December

31, 1953, since (1) there was no definite evidence as to the severity of

claimant's mental impairment prior to such date, (2) the claimant's

employment prior to 1949 demonstrated an ability to engage in substantial

gainful activity, and (3) there was no evidence indicating her

unemployment between 1949 and 1956 was due to a physical or mental

impairment. The fact that her impairment may at any time after December

31, 1953, have reached such severity as to preclude her from engaging in

substantial gainful activity is academic since she could not meet the

insured status requirement after such date. Accordingly, the claimant is

not entitled to a period of disability or disability benefits.

This case is before the Appeals Council on its own motion for review of

the hearing examiner's decision dated March 27, 1967. The hearing examiner

held that the claimant was entitled to a period of disability commencing

January 1, 1949, and to disability insurance benefits under applicable

provisions of the Social Security Act.

ot entitled to a period of disability or disability benefits.

This case is before the Appeals Council on its own motion for review of

the hearing examiner's decision dated March 27, 1967. The hearing examiner

held that the claimant was entitled to a period of disability commencing

January 1, 1949, and to disability insurance benefits under applicable

provisions of the Social Security Act.

The claimant filed an application for a period of disability and for

disability insurance benefits on December 2, 1965, alleging inability to

work from 1949 because of a nervous disorder. She stated that she had been

nervous most of her life and that as early as 1947 she had to stop working

for about 3 months. In 1949 she stopped working completely because of her

nervousness, but indicated she had no medical treatment from 1949 until

1956, when a psychiatrist had her committed to [X] Hospital because of

auditory hallucinations. She indicated that since 1956, when she was first

committed, she had been hospitalized at least 50 percent of the time.

STATEMENT OF THE LAW AND ISSUES

Section 216(i) of the Social Security Act provides for the establishment

of a period of disability, and section 223 provides for the payments of

disability insurance benefits under conditions therein specified. As

herein pertinent, both sections prior to the enactment of the Social

Security Amendments of 1965 on July 30, 1965, defined "disability" as an

inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected

to result in death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration.

ditions therein specified. As

herein pertinent, both sections prior to the enactment of the Social

Security Amendments of 1965 on July 30, 1965, defined "disability" as an

inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected

to result in death or to be of long-continued and indefinite duration.

In pertinent part, sections 216(i) and 223 of the Act, as amended, now

define "disability" as an inability to engage in any substantial gainful

activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental

impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or

can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12

months.

When a claimant's entitlement is dependent on the amended definition of

"disability," disability insurance benefits are not payable for any month

prior to September 1965 [section 303(f)(1) of Public Law 89-97].

Entitlement to a period of disability may not be established under an

application, if the period would have ended more than 12 months before the

date such application was filed [section 216(i)(2)(E) of the Act as

amended in 1965].

The Amendments of 1965 eliminated the provision of the Act which

specifically limited the prospective life of disability applications. The

Act now provides that if a claimant meets all the requirements for

entitlement at any time before the Secretary issues a final decision on an

application, such application shall be deemed to have been filed in the

first month in which all requirements were met.

ents of 1965 eliminated the provision of the Act which

specifically limited the prospective life of disability applications. The

Act now provides that if a claimant meets all the requirements for

entitlement at any time before the Secretary issues a final decision on an

application, such application shall be deemed to have been filed in the

first month in which all requirements were met.

The general issues before the Appeals Council are whether the claimant is

entitled to a period of disability and to disability insurance benefits

under sections 216(i) and 223, respectively, of the Social Security Act,

as amended. The specific issues are whether the claimant was under a

"disability," as defined in the Act either prior to or after the

Amendments of 1965, and if so, when such disability commenced and the

duration thereof; and whether the special earnings requirements of the Act

are met for the purpose of entitlement.

The claimant's earnings record shows that the special earnings

requirements of the Act were met from a time prior to 1949, when the

claimant allegedly became unable to work, and that these requirements

continued to be met through December 31, 1953. Therefore, in order to be

entitled to a period of disability or to disability insurance benefits, it

is necessary for the claimant to establish that she was under a

"disability" from a time on or prior to December 1, 1953.

SUMMARY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE

The medical evidence before the hearing examiner consisted of the

following:

requirements

continued to be met through December 31, 1953. Therefore, in order to be

entitled to a period of disability or to disability insurance benefits, it

is necessary for the claimant to establish that she was under a

"disability" from a time on or prior to December 1, 1953.

SUMMARY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE

The medical evidence before the hearing examiner consisted of the

following:

A report from [X] Hospital disclosed that the claimant was admitted to

the hospital on February 28, 1956, and was committed on March 15, 1956.

She remained hospitalized until April 12, 1957, on which date she was

transferred to the [Y] Hospital. According to the admission history from

[X] Hospital, as obtained from the claimant's husband, the claimant seemed

to become withdrawn about a week before her hospitalization. A

precipitating factor was the information acquired about November 1955,

that an operation was to be performed on her youngest son in January 1956.

She became quite anxious and concerned about this. Also, toward the latter

part of 1955, the claimant became quite involved with the [Z] Association.

On February 27, 1956, upon returning home about 10:00 p.m., the husband

found a police car in front of the house. The claimant had become

disturbed and had telephoned the police department telling them that an

officer of the [Z] Association was roaming outside the house; that he had

hypnotized her and she was in a "spell"; and that he was able to

communicate with her and was doing her thinking. When the police arrived

at the home they asked a Dr. [H] to attend to the claimant, who was at

that time telling people that she was going to write a book on child care

the next day; that she knew the answers to all the people's problems; that

her husband would be killed on the way home; and that she thought her son

was the Jewish Messiah. The claimant was given a sedative by Dr

hinking. When the police arrived

at the home they asked a Dr. [H] to attend to the claimant, who was at

that time telling people that she was going to write a book on child care

the next day; that she knew the answers to all the people's problems; that

her husband would be killed on the way home; and that she thought her son

was the Jewish Messiah. The claimant was given a sedative by Dr. [H], who

subsequently recommended that she go to a hospital, which she did without

too much objection. Her condition was diagnosed as a schizophrenic

reaction, paranoid type. She was given an indefinite leave in June 1956,

but returned to the hospital in November 1956 at which time she was

complaining of auditory hallucinations. She began receiving electroshock

therapy in November 1956. In January 1957, she was considered to be in

good remission and was permitted a one week visit to her husband on

January 26, 1957. She returned to the hospital on February 8, 1957,

fearful of her husband, and believing that he was using marijuana. She

remained in the hospital until her transfer to the [Y] Hospital.

The evidence from the [Y] Hospital consisted of approximately 26 separate

narrative summaries relating to the claimant's condition from April 12,

1957 to October 22, 1959, and from October 28, 1959 through July 30, 1965.

According to a report dated May 23, 1957, the claimant's illness began

over a period of a few months in late 1955 and early 1956. In a report

dated May 27, 1957, her condition was diagnosed as: "Schizophrenic

reaction, paranoid type, chronic, severe, manifested by hostility,

evasiveness, ideas of reference, ideas of influence, inappropriate affect,

poor judgment, and lack of insight."

According to a report dated May 23, 1957, the claimant's illness began

over a period of a few months in late 1955 and early 1956. In a report

dated May 27, 1957, her condition was diagnosed as: "Schizophrenic

reaction, paranoid type, chronic, severe, manifested by hostility,

evasiveness, ideas of reference, ideas of influence, inappropriate affect,

poor judgment, and lack of insight."

The claimant showed significant improvement from time to time throughout

her hospitalization, but would become acutely and seriously disturbed at

other times, often during a period of trial visit. Nevertheless, she was

able to remain outside the hospital on trial visits for extended periods,

as, for example, from December 1957 to June 1958, and from January 1959 to

October 1959. In this latter month, the claimant, being pregnant, was

temporarily transferred to [C] Hospital for delivery. She was readmitted

to [Y] Hospital on October 28, 1959, being 4 days post partum, her child

having died within a day or two of birth. She had become increasingly

disturbed while at [C] Hospital. Following readmission to [Y] Hospital she

became progressively more disturbed, with her delusions becoming more

bizarre and more openly expressed. She became so disturbed, hostile and

threatening, that it was necessary for her to be placed in seclusion for

short periods of time at her own request. By January 1960, the claimant

showed marked improvement, and she was again released on a trial visit

beginning February 1960 [1] , and

remained out of the hospital continuously until August 1960 (except for 2

days' hospitalization in May 1960). At the time of her return to the

hospital she had reportedly been upset at home for several weeks prior

thereto, and had been "deluging" the staff with psychotic letters.

Nevertheless, toward the end of September 1960, she had a sudden clearing

of her psychotic symptoms and was able to go on unaccompanied passes and

reportedly did well

(except for 2

days' hospitalization in May 1960). At the time of her return to the

hospital she had reportedly been upset at home for several weeks prior

thereto, and had been "deluging" the staff with psychotic letters.

Nevertheless, toward the end of September 1960, she had a sudden clearing

of her psychotic symptoms and was able to go on unaccompanied passes and

reportedly did well. She was placed on leave of absence once more for a

15-day period in order to look for work. She was successful in finding

employment and made a good adjustment. Her leave was then changed to trial

visit status. While out of the hospital on trial visit she apparently

remarried. Prior to her return in February 1961, she once more began

"flooding" the hospital with psychotic letters. Thereafter, she had two

subsequent trial visits, the second of which ended in February 1962, at

which time she returned to the hospital in a coma following a suicide

attempt with an overdose of benadryl. The claimant improved with

hospitalization and was placed on trial visit 5 months later. This was

followed by rehospitalization and further trial visits, the last ending in

December 1964. The claimant then remained hospitalized for the next 7

months. The last report from the [Y] Hospital indicated that it was

believed she was ready to resume her prehospital activities on July 30,

1965 and she was then placed on a 90-day trial visit. It was believed

doubtful that she would ever be able to work full time again consistently

in the foreseeable future.

ding in

December 1964. The claimant then remained hospitalized for the next 7

months. The last report from the [Y] Hospital indicated that it was

believed she was ready to resume her prehospital activities on July 30,

1965 and she was then placed on a 90-day trial visit. It was believed

doubtful that she would ever be able to work full time again consistently

in the foreseeable future.

In a letter dated July 18, 1966, from [H], M.D. who is a specialist in

psychiatry and neurology, and to whom previous reference was made in the

admission history taken at the time of the claimant's commitment to [X]

Hospital, Dr. [H] indicated that in 1956 the claimant and her family were

his neighbors and that her husband had sought his advice because the

claimant had become so mentally disturbed. He stated: "In retrospect there

were, before the frank breakdown, earlier signs and symptoms of

psychological ill health."

Other evidence in file included a statement dated December 154, 1965,

from the claimant's ex-husband, [N] to whom the claimant was married from

November 1947 until March

1961. [2] He indicated in his

statement that prior to the claimant's hospitalization for mental illness

in 1956, he was almost totally ignorant of this type of illness, its

symptoms and its effects. He stated that having become aware of this

illness as a result of his wife's hospitalization, and the fact that the

public in general has been alerted to observe, consider and treat mental

illness, he realizes, in retrospect, that his wife had mental symptoms

almost as long as he had known her. He stated that intermittently

throughout their married life, his wife suffered emotional upsets which he

neither understood nor knew how to combat or be considerate of. He

indicated that many instances of emotional disturbances and periods of

deep depression, though puzzling to him then, are now recognizable as

mental illness

wife had mental symptoms

almost as long as he had known her. He stated that intermittently

throughout their married life, his wife suffered emotional upsets which he

neither understood nor knew how to combat or be considerate of. He

indicated that many instances of emotional disturbances and periods of

deep depression, though puzzling to him then, are now recognizable as

mental illness. He also stated that there were numerous times when he was

told by others that peculiarities in his wife's behavior had been

observed. He concluded that his wife had suffered from mental illness for

many more years than she was known to be ill.

In a letter dated May 26, 1966, the claimant stated that her illness has

never been obvious to anyone but professional people, even currently,

despite the fact that she has been under commitment to a mental hospital

for 10 years. She further stated that she was as ill in 1949 as in 1956,

when first hospitalized.

In a second letter received in June 1966, the claimant indicated that

once when she was absent without leave from the maximum security ward of

the [Y] Hospital, she was refused admittance to the [D] Hospital on the

grounds that she was not in need of psychiatric care.

HEARING TESTIMONY

At the hearing on March 10, 1967, the claimant testified that she was

born on February 8, 1922, and was a high school graduate. She was living

at the [Y] Hospital at the time of the hearing, but was to be released on

a trial visit that same day. She stated that she still hears voices and

has heard voices since she was 9 or 10 years old. She testified that she

first began working at age 17 as a secretary, but became nervous after 3

weeks and quit. She next worked as a bookkeeper about 1 year, again became

nervous and quit, following which she obtained a job with the [M] Railroad

as a clerk-typist and personal stenographer

me day. She stated that she still hears voices and

has heard voices since she was 9 or 10 years old. She testified that she

first began working at age 17 as a secretary, but became nervous after 3

weeks and quit. She next worked as a bookkeeper about 1 year, again became

nervous and quit, following which she obtained a job with the [M] Railroad

as a clerk-typist and personal stenographer. She stated she had no

difficulty applying herself to her work, but whenever she became nervous

on a job she would quit and take another. She indicated that here was

little gap between jobs because she didn't have much money to support

herself. Upon quitting her railroad job she went into military service in

1943. While in service she was an athletic instructor and did office work.

Other later work included that of cashier, waitress and babysitter. She

married in 1947 but soon returned to work when her husband became

unemployed. Following unemployment of her husband, she stopped work in

1948. The claimant agreed that when compelled to work, she has done do,

but when there was no necessity to work, she has not. She did not again

resume employment until 1957. She stated that all of her work in the last

10 years has been followed by hospitalization. She believes that at the

time of the episode in 1956 when she was committed to [X] Hospital, her

condition was the same as in the previous 10 years, but that this was the

first time that she had ever spoken her thoughts. For example, she stated

that she thought that her son was the Messiah ever since his birth in

September 1949 but she had never told anyone until 1956. She stated that

she had lost a brother when he was 10 years old, and she was told by a

doctor at [X] Hospital that when her son had to undergo surgery, she had

become confused because her son looked like her deceased brother, and she

thought that her son was also going to die. She stated: "This is actually

what made me go completely insane."

1949 but she had never told anyone until 1956. She stated that

she had lost a brother when he was 10 years old, and she was told by a

doctor at [X] Hospital that when her son had to undergo surgery, she had

become confused because her son looked like her deceased brother, and she

thought that her son was also going to die. She stated: "This is actually

what made me go completely insane."

At the hearing the claimant's psychiatrist from the [Y] Hospital, Dr. [A]

also testified. She stated that with the claimant's type of illness the

longer a person stays on the job, the more severe it often becomes because

such a person becomes more involved with interpersonal relationships. The

doctor stated the opinion that the claimant is capable of handling her

work when she starts out, but because she is so competent, employers want

her to take higher type positions which she cannot handle. Dr. [A] stated

that at the time the claimant was committed in 1956, it seemed as though

she had been psychotic for a couple of years, but as more was learned

about the claimant's background, for example, that she had heard voices

when she was about 9 or 10 years old, it became clear that she had had

severe problems over a long period of time. The doctor indicated that she

did not believe the claimant's working was detrimental to her condition

when she was able to do it for short periods. She stated, however, that if

the claimant does not stop working when she begins to become disturbed,

she will become very disturbed. In answer to the further question of

whether the claimant was severely impaired on or prior to December 31,

1953, Dr. [A] stated that she did not honestly know; that she wasn't as

familiar with the claimant's work record before the hearing, being unaware

that it had been so irregular. She did not believe that the claimant could

have supported herself over a long period of time.

isturbed. In answer to the further question of

whether the claimant was severely impaired on or prior to December 31,

1953, Dr. [A] stated that she did not honestly know; that she wasn't as

familiar with the claimant's work record before the hearing, being unaware

that it had been so irregular. She did not believe that the claimant could

have supported herself over a long period of time.

Dr. [A] stated that the claimant has constantly hallucinated since she

has known her; that she is mildly depressed most of the time, and

sometimes severely depressed.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

The medical evidence as summarized in this decision clearly establishes

that the claimant has been seriously impaired because of her mental

condition at least since February 1956. Conceding severity at that point,

the questions to be resolved are whether her condition was such as to

prevent her from engaging in substantial gainful activity on or prior to

December 31, 1953, that is, the date on which she was last insured for

disability purposes; and if so, whether the work in which she engaged

subsequent to 1956, demonstrated her ability to engage in substantial

gainful work, notwithstanding the severity of her impairment.

Regarding the first question, the claimant has stated that she has been

hearing voices since age 9 or 10. Such auditory hallucinations do, of

course, indicate that she had not been perfectly normal from a mental

standpoint throughout most of her life. The claimant has, however, (at

least until about February 1956), apparently always been able to recognize

that the voices she heard were imaginary and to accept them as a fantasy.

That these symptoms did not socially or occupationally inhibit her is

obvious from the fact that she was able to be employed regularly, although

changing jobs frequently. No evidence of serious personality

disintegration is indicated prior to her hospitalization in 1956

56), apparently always been able to recognize

that the voices she heard were imaginary and to accept them as a fantasy.

That these symptoms did not socially or occupationally inhibit her is

obvious from the fact that she was able to be employed regularly, although

changing jobs frequently. No evidence of serious personality

disintegration is indicated prior to her hospitalization in 1956. While it

is not known whether symptoms of mental illness posed any problems with

employers or coworkers, considering that she was accepted into the Women's

Army Corps in December 1943, was on active duty for 24 months, obtained

the rank of Sergeant and was honorably discharged, it seems clear that

whatever her symptoms were through that period, they did not interfere

with her day-to-day functioning, her ability to handle her work

assignments, to get along with others, etc. In view of the regimentation

and discipline demanded in the Army, she might be expected to have

functioned at least as well following her return to a more relaxed

civilian life and work in 1946. Her earnings record shows 12 consecutive

quarters of coverage beginning with the first quarter of 1946, with annual

earnings averaging over $2,400.00 per year for the 3 years from 1946

through 1948, at which point she terminated her employment because of her

marriage. Thereafter, until 1957, her earnings record is of no help in

evaluating her condition since she held no employment of any kind.

The fact that the claimant did not work after 1948 warrants no

presumption that she was mentally unable to work since she indicated in

her testimony that she did not work when there was no economic necessity

to do so, and as noted, she stopped working when she became supported by

her husband.

ings record is of no help in

evaluating her condition since she held no employment of any kind.

The fact that the claimant did not work after 1948 warrants no

presumption that she was mentally unable to work since she indicated in

her testimony that she did not work when there was no economic necessity

to do so, and as noted, she stopped working when she became supported by

her husband.

The record contains no medical evidence contemporary with the period at

issue in this case, which would show exactly what her condition was at

that time, and in fact, no medical reports whatever have been furnished

which describe treatment of any physical or mental condition prior to the

claimant's hospitalization at [X] Hospital in 1956.

We are faced then with the situation where the evidence clearly

establishes that the claimant was able, and in fact, did engage in

substantial gainful activity through 1948, but where it is not

affirmatively shown that she was able to so engage thereafter through

December 31, 1953. However, in the absence of any contemporary evidence of

a definite mental impairment on or prior to December 31, 1953, the Appeals

Council is unable to arbitrarily conclude that one was present but

undetected on or before that date. Certainly, where the record is devoid

of any conclusive evidence that the claimant's condition significantly

changed between 1948 and the latter part of 1955, it is more reasonable to

conclude that the status quo was maintained, than to suppose that the

claimant became totally incapacitated at some point between those dates.

Furthermore, the evidence definitely indicates that more pronounced mental

symptoms occurred as a result of what the claimant interpreted as a

personal crisis, that is, the impending surgery which her son was to

undergo in January 1956, and that these mental changes took place on or

shortly before her hospitalization in February 1956

tally incapacitated at some point between those dates.

Furthermore, the evidence definitely indicates that more pronounced mental

symptoms occurred as a result of what the claimant interpreted as a

personal crisis, that is, the impending surgery which her son was to

undergo in January 1956, and that these mental changes took place on or

shortly before her hospitalization in February 1956. While she alleges

hallucinations prior to her hospitalization, it is obvious from a reading

of the medical reports that her condition became quite different from what

it had been, with manifestations of disorientation, arrogance, hostility,

inappropriate affect, ides of reference and influence, lack of insight,

lack of judgment, and periods of tremulousness, withdrawal and paranoid

tendencies.

The claimant's ex-husband and her former neighbor, who was a

psychiatrist, have stated that, in retrospect, they believe the claimant

was not mentally well prior to the episode in February 1956. However, the

facts do not indicate, inferentially or otherwise, that the claimant's

mental status was disabling on or prior to December 31, 1953, or that it

was any worse than it had been prior to December 1948, during which time

she demonstrated her ability to earn a living.

The claimant's treating psychiatrist also indicated that the claimant has

had severe problems for a long period before 1956. In response to a

specific question as to whether she believed the claimant was severely

impaired on or before December 31, 1953, the psychiatrist stated that she

did not honestly know, but that from what she knew of the claimant's work

history, it appeared that she was not ever able to work steadily at any

given job because of hearing voices. The Appeals Council, however, does

not agree that such conclusion is warranted in the face of the evidence of

record

t was severely

impaired on or before December 31, 1953, the psychiatrist stated that she

did not honestly know, but that from what she knew of the claimant's work

history, it appeared that she was not ever able to work steadily at any

given job because of hearing voices. The Appeals Council, however, does

not agree that such conclusion is warranted in the face of the evidence of

record. For example, a review of the claimant's work history, including

her earnings record, reveals that she worked regularly in every quarter

from the third quarter of 1939 through the fourth quarter of 1948.

Secondly, the claimant testified to the fact that although she changed

employers when she became nervous, there was little interval between

periods of employment and she had no difficulty applying herself to her

work.

Therefore, after considering all the evidence relating to the claimant's

condition throughout the period in which she was employed, ending in 1948,

and her condition as it has existed before and after February 1956, the

Appeals Council is of the opinion, and so finds, that the evidence does

not establish that the claimant was precluded from engaging in substantial

gainful activity on or prior to December 31, 1953, and that she was not

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act on or before that

date.

Having reached the above conclusion, the question of whether the claimant

demonstrated ability to engage in substantial gainful activity by her work

after 1956, becomes academic. The claimant may not have demonstrated

ability to engage in substantial gainful activity with reasonable

regularity subsequent to the time she was committed to the hospital,

inasmuch as every work effort was followed by a return to the hospital,

sometimes for extended periods

aimant

demonstrated ability to engage in substantial gainful activity by her work

after 1956, becomes academic. The claimant may not have demonstrated

ability to engage in substantial gainful activity with reasonable

regularity subsequent to the time she was committed to the hospital,

inasmuch as every work effort was followed by a return to the hospital,

sometimes for extended periods. However, it is noted that even during this

period subsequent to February 1956, when her overall condition was

obviously more serious than before, she reportedly was able to function

very well in competitive work situations for periods of 6 months or

longer. Thus, such evidence gives further support to the previous

conclusions reached in this decision, that during the period when her

symptoms were less severe, that is, through December 1948, when she was

regularly employed, and thereafter until her hospitalization in 1956, her

condition did not prevent her from engaging in substantial gainful

activity.

After careful consideration of the entire record, the Appeals Council

makes the following findings:

- The claimant's application for a period of disability and disability

insurance benefits was filed on December 2, 1965.

- The claimant last met the special earnings requirements of the Act on

December 31, 1953.

- The evidence does not establish that the claimant had a physical or

mental impairment sufficiently severe to prevent her from engaging in

substantial gainful activity on or before December 31, 1953.

- The evidence establishes that the claimant's mental conditions began

deteriorating shortly before February 1956.

- The evidence fails to establish that the claimant's impairments were of

such severity as to preclude her from engaging in substantial gainful

activity for any continuous periods commencing at a time on or prior to

December 31, 1953, which would permit entitlement to a period of

disability or to disability insurance benefits.

conditions began

deteriorating shortly before February 1956.

- The evidence fails to establish that the claimant's impairments were of

such severity as to preclude her from engaging in substantial gainful

activity for any continuous periods commencing at a time on or prior to

December 31, 1953, which would permit entitlement to a period of

disability or to disability insurance benefits.

- The claimant was not under a "disability," as defined in the Act either

prior to or after the Social Security Amendments of 1965, commencing at a

time on or before December 31, 1953.

The claimant's application for a period of disability and disability

insurance benefits was filed on December 2, 1965.

The claimant last met the special earnings requirements of the Act on

December 31, 1953.

The evidence does not establish that the claimant had a physical or

mental impairment sufficiently severe to prevent her from engaging in

substantial gainful activity on or before December 31, 1953.

The evidence establishes that the claimant's mental conditions began

deteriorating shortly before February 1956.

The evidence fails to establish that the claimant's impairments were of

such severity as to preclude her from engaging in substantial gainful

activity for any continuous periods commencing at a time on or prior to

December 31, 1953, which would permit entitlement to a period of

disability or to disability insurance benefits.

The claimant was not under a "disability," as defined in the Act either

prior to or after the Social Security Amendments of 1965, commencing at a

time on or before December 31, 1953.

DECISION

ial gainful

activity for any continuous periods commencing at a time on or prior to

December 31, 1953, which would permit entitlement to a period of

disability or to disability insurance benefits.

The claimant was not under a "disability," as defined in the Act either

prior to or after the Social Security Amendments of 1965, commencing at a

time on or before December 31, 1953.

DECISION

It is the decision of the Appeals Council that the claimant, based on her

application filed on December 2, 1965, is not entitled to a period of

disability or to disability insurance benefits under the provisions of

sections 216(i) and 223, respectively, of the Social Security Act, in

effect prior to the Social Security Amendments of 1965, or as amended

thereby. The decision of the hearing examiner is reversed.

[1] During this and other

periods of trial work, the claimant obtained employment, usually as a

secretary. Her earnings record discloses postings of $2,285.80 in 1959,

$1,934.60 in 2960, and $1,227.32 in 1964. Lesser amounts are shown for the

years 1958, 1961, and 1962.

[2] The claimant indicated she

divorced her husband in 1959 and hospital reports indicate that she

instituted divorce proceedings in or about October 1959.