Richardson v. Wright
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2016Bailey v. Colvin N.D. Ala.
- 2003Karen L. ex rel. Jane L. v. Health Net of the Northeast D. Conn.
- 2001Healey v. Thompson D. Conn.
- 1992Nuclear Information Resource Service v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D.C. Cir.
- 1991Vito v. Department of Environmental Management R.I.
- 1991Farmer v. Mabus S.D. Miss.
- 1990Union of Concerned Scientists v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission D.C. Cir.
- 1987Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center v. Bowen 11th Cir.
- 1987Hospital Ass'n v. Secretary of Health & Human Services 1st Cir.
- 1986St. Louis University Medical Center v. Bowen E.D. Mo.
Cites 1 statute
- Additional rules relating to benefits based on disability
Cites 2 cases
- Goldberg v. Kelly
- Wright v. Finch
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE v. WRIGHT et al.
Judges
- with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall join,
Attorneys
- Assistant Attorney General Gray argued the cause for appellant in No. 70-151 and for appellee in No. 70-5211. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Wilmot R. Hastings, Edwin H. Yourman, and Paul Merlin.
- Robert N. Sayler argued the cause and filed briefs for appellees in No. 70-161 and for appellants in No. 70-5211.
- Briefs of amici curiae in both cases were filed by Thomas L. Fike for the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County; by David H. Marlin and Jonathan A. Weiss for the National Council of Senior Citizens; and by Albert C. Neimeth for Luella H. Mills et al. Bernard P. Becker and Harvey N. Schmidt filed a brief for Stella Van Guilder et al. as amici curiae.
We noted probable jurisdiction of these appeals, 404 U. S. 819 (1971), to consider the applicability of Gold berg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), to the suspension and termination of disability benefit payments pursuant to § 225 of the Social Security Act, 70 Stat. 817, 42 U. S. C. § 425, and implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Shortly before oral argument, we were advised that the Secretary had adopted new regulations, effective December 27, 1971, governing the procedures to be followed by the Social Security Administration in determining whether to suspend or terminate disability benefits. These procedures include the requirement that a recipient of benefits be given notice of a proposed suspension and the reasons therefor, plus an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence. In light of that development, we believe that the appropriate course is to withhold judicial action pending reprocessing, under the new regulations, of the determinations here in dispute. If that process results in a determination of entitlement to disability benefits, there will be no need to consider the constitutional claim that claimants are entitled to an opportunity to make an oral presentation. In the context of a comprehensive complex administrative program, the administrative process must have a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the District Court for the District of Columbia, 321 F. Supp. 383 (1971), with direction to that court to remand the cause to the Secretary and to retain jurisdiction for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary upon completion of the administrative procedure.
Vacated and remanded.