Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Francisco Rosado TOLEDO, Plaintiff, Appellant,v.SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, Defendant, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 435 F.2d 1297
Jan. 14, 1971
Carlos Santos Correa, Rio Piedros, P.R., on brief for appellant.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Julio Morales-Sanchez, U.S. Atty., Kathryn H. Baldwin and Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Attys., Dept. of Justice, on brief for appellee.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appellant in 1967 sought to show himself entitled to Social Security benefits for total disability commencing before the end of 1960, the last year he was insured. He lost at every step of the administrative process, and in the district court. 308 F.Supp. 192. On this appeal his principal point seems to be that he should not merely have been told that he could have his own counsel when he appeared before the hearing examiner after the Social Security Administration had denied his claim, but should have been supplied with counsel at government expense. There is no suggestion that having counsel would have resulted in the presentation of any better case. It is quite apparent from the record that plaintiff was fairly treated; indeed, the examiner was exceptionally solicitous and helpful. We see no possible prejudice. Cross v. Finch, 5 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 406, 408-409; Granger v. Finch, 7 Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 206, cert. denied 91 S.Ct. 46; Domozik v. Cohen, 3 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 5, 9; cf. Steimer v. Gardner, 9 Cir., 1968, 395 F.2d 197; Ussi v. Folsom, 2 Cir., 1958, 254 F.2d 842.
Affirmed.