Unpublished Dispositionclemon C. Bratcher, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-appellee, 843 F.2d 1390 (6th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 843 F.2d 1390 (6th Cir. 1988) April 6, 1988

Before CORNELIA G. KENNEDY and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and BAILEY BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.

RYAN, Circuit Judge.


The plaintiff-appellant, Clemon C. Bratcher, appeals from the district court's order affirming the Secretary's decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. Because we find the decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

Mr. Bratcher filed his application for disability insurance benefits on April 21, 1980, alleging that he was disabled due to back and neck pain and psychological disorders. The initial hearing before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was held in March of 1981. Mr. Bratcher's application was denied and this case began its journey through the review process. Subsequently, it has been remanded to the ALJ for three additional hearings. After the fourth hearing, the ALJ found that Mr. Bratcher was not disabled and the Appeals Council adopted this determination as its own, with one minor modification. Thereafter, the district court found the Secretary's decision to deny benefits to be supported by substantial evidence and accordingly affirmed.

On review, this court's role is to determine whether the Appeals Council's decision (here the ALJ's decision as modified) is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545-46 (6th Cir. 1986). We are satisfied that the Secretary's determination that Mr. Bratcher's pain and psychological problems are not disabling is supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's order upholding the Secretary's denial of Mr. Bratcher's application for disability insurance benefits.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.