Hudson D. Harmon v. Robert O. Finch, Etc.

Harmon was denied disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423 by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and sought judicial review of that determination. The district court found that the Secretary’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed. We agree.

In his opening brief, Harmon’s counsel describes himself and this case as follows:

We are sympathetic, but are unable to accept counsel’s description of this case. Essentially, what he asks us to do is to disregard the provisions of the Social Security Act so as to render what he believes to be justice to his client. This is not our function. Counsel, in all of his interesting capacities, should address his views to the Congress, not to us.

We say this because our role, under the Act, is a very limited one. The duty of the courts is only to ascertain whether substantial evidence supports the decision. If it does, the Secretary’s finding is conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); Richardson v. Perales, 1971, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 ; Ainsworth v. Finch, 9 Cir., 1971, 437 F.2d 446, 447 . Moreover, the statute’s definition of “disability” is much narrower than the word itself,…