Bettencourt
Miller v. Bettencourt
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Bone, J.
The undisputed facts and the issue of law in this case are similar to those before us in the companion case of Miller, Federal Security Administrator, v. Burger, 9 Cir., 161 F.2d 992 . 1 By consent, the record of the Burger case was incorporated in the record in this case and the cases were consolidated for argument in this court.
Appellee was employed by Rosenberg Brothers and Company at its Santa Clara, California plant, the same corporation which employed Burger at its Fresno, California plant. She was first employed by them in January, 1937 and worked for them until March, 1943. She reached the age of sixty-five on March 15, 1943 and on April 13, 1943 filed with the Social Security Board her written application for a wage earner’s primary insurance benefit under the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. The claim was disallowed. Ap-pellee was given a hearing before a Referee who also denied her claim and thereafter the Appeals Council sustained these denials.
In all of these proceedings it appears that appellee had satisfied all of the conditions entitling her to primary insurance benefits of the Social Security Act, save and except that she had only nine quarters…