Richardson v. Perales

Supreme Court of United States
402 U.S. 389 (1971)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a Social Security disability claim hearing, written medical reports by licensed physicians who have examined the claimant may constitute substantial evidence supportive of a finding of non-disability, even if the reports are hearsay and contradicted by live testimony, so long as the claimant has not exercised their right to subpoena the reporting physicians for cross-examination.

Facts:

On September 29, 1965, Pedro Perales, a truck driver, injured his back at work and subsequently filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits.
Dr. Munslow, a neurosurgeon, performed surgery on Perales in November 1965 but found no definitive pathology like a protruded disc, ultimately diagnosing him with mild lumbar neuritis.
Perales's personal physician, Dr. Morales, consistently maintained that Perales had a permanent injury, was not malingering, and was totally disabled.
At the request of the state disability agency, Perales was examined by several consulting physicians.
Dr. Langston, an orthopedic surgeon, reported finding no significant abnormalities and concluded Perales was intentionally exaggerating his symptoms.
Dr. Bailey, a psychiatrist, diagnosed Perales with a 'paranoid personality' but stated he did not have a separate psychiatric illness.
Dr. Mattson conducted an electromyography study and reported findings 'strongly suggestive of lack of maximal effort' and a 'psychogenic component to weakness.'

Procedural Posture:

Pedro Perales's disability claim was denied by the state agency and, upon reconsideration, by the Social Security Administration.
Following a hearing where Perales and his physician testified, a hearing examiner also found him not disabled, relying in part on written reports from consulting physicians.
The Social Security Administration's Appeals Council affirmed the hearing examiner's decision.
Perales sought judicial review in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which granted summary judgment in his favor, finding the written reports did not constitute substantial evidence.
The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that uncorroborated hearsay reports could not be substantial evidence when objected to and contradicted by live testimony.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do written medical reports by physicians who have examined a Social Security disability claimant constitute 'substantial evidence' sufficient to support a finding of non-disability, when the claimant objects to the reports as hearsay and they are contradicted by the claimant's and his physician's live testimony, if the claimant did not subpoena the reporting physicians?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Blackmun

Yes. A written report by a licensed physician who has examined a claimant may be received as evidence and may constitute substantial evidence supportive of a finding adverse to the claimant, despite its hearsay character and the presence of opposing direct testimony, when the claimant has not exercised his right to subpoena the reporting physician. The Court reasoned that Social Security administrative hearings are designed to be informal, and strict rules of evidence do not apply. These medical reports possess 'underlying reliability and probative value' because they are prepared by independent specialists who personally examined the claimant, are detailed and consistent, and are part of an administrative system intended to be adjudicative rather than adversarial. Crucially, the claimant's failure to use the available subpoena procedure to cross-examine the physicians precludes him from later complaining about a denial of confrontation rights.

Dissenting - Justice Douglas

No. Mere uncorroborated hearsay evidence, such as written medical reports, cannot constitute substantial evidence to support a decision adverse to the claimant when it is contradicted by live medical testimony and the claimant objects. The dissent argued that cross-examination is essential to a 'full and true disclosure of the facts' under the Administrative Procedure Act and principles of fundamental fairness. Relying on reports from government-paid doctors who are not subject to cross-examination, especially when contradicted by the claimant's treating physician, is an unjust practice that deprives the claimant of a fair hearing. The dissent characterized the use of a non-examining medical adviser and reports from 'defense-minded experts' as a violation of procedural due process.

Analysis:

This decision significantly shaped administrative law by affirming that procedural due process in an administrative setting does not require the same formalities as a judicial trial. It established that reliable hearsay, such as expert medical reports, can qualify as 'substantial evidence' to support an agency's factual determination. The ruling places the procedural burden on the claimant to request cross-examination by subpoena, effectively creating a waiver of the confrontation right if not exercised. This precedent has had a profound and lasting impact on the efficiency of the Social Security disability system, allowing it to process a vast number of claims based on written evidence, while also defining the boundaries of a claimant's procedural rights within that system.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Richardson v. Perales (1971)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature