Byron White

Name: Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion
Author: Byron White

Summary

“Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion”, is a work by Byron White. It explores elements such as impairments, disability and adults.

Quotes from Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion (Byron White)

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ In light of this purpose, it is appropriate for the Secretary to evaluate adults not only in terms of the severity of their impairment, but also in terms of their residual functional capacity to perform work.
By contrast, Congress had a different set of considerations in mind when it provided for children's benefits. Recognizing that disabled children from low-income households are "among the most disadvantaged of all Americans," Congress provided special disability benefits for these persons "because their needs are often greater than those of nondisabled children." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ The Social Security Administration processes over 100,000 child-disability claims a year. The agency has a finite amount of funds with which to work. By requiring the Secretary to conduct unspecified individualized determinations in cases where an applicant fails to satisfy the agency that he is otherwise disabled, the majority imposes costs on the agency that surely will detract from the pool of benefits available to the unfortunate children that Congress has sought to protect through the Supplemental Security Income Program. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ Because vocational considerations are largely beside the point in dealing with children-a fact that the Secretary submits Congress recognized in referring only to medical considerations in subsection (a) (3) (A) 's definition of what would disable a child the regulations do not provide for further consideration of the child in light of such factors. Instead, a child not suffering from a Part A impairment is evaluated under an additional listing of impairments in Part B of Appendix 1 to subpart P, any of which, or its equivalent, will be deemed sufficient to disable a child. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ The difference, furthermore, between the Secretary's regulatory approach toward adults and his approach toward children accords with the different purposes underlying the disability programs for the two groups. Congress provided disability benefits for adults in order to ensure "the basic means of replacing earnings that have been lost as a result of . . . disability" for those who "are not able to support themselves through work. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ There is no reference to nonmedical factors in this definition and no references to specific consequences that an impairment must or should produce. Furthermore, neither "comparable," "severity," nor the two words together are there or elsewhere defined in the Act, and their meaning is anything but clear. The severity of an impairment that disables an adult is measured by its effects on the ability to engage in gainful employment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ If there are medically determinable diseases or impairments that should be considered disabling because of comparable severity to those affecting adults, the children suffering from them should claim disability, make their case before the Secretary, and take the case to court if their claims are rejected. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ Under the regulations applying to children, a person under 18 will be considered disabled if suffering from a Part A impairment listed for adults or its equivalent, as long as the disease's processes have a similar effect on adults and younger persons. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ The Secretary has implemented the statute with respect to adults by regulations listing certain impairments that he will, without more, consider disabling because each of them would prevent an adult from engaging in any kind of gainful employment. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Byron White, Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion

“ The regulations which have been issued with regard to disability for children state that if a child's impairments are not those listed, eligibility may still be met if the impairments 'singly or in combination . ”

Byron White

Summary

Quotes from Sullivan v. Zebley — Dissenting Opinion (Byron White)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature