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
Unempl.ins.rep. Cch 14022ajohn R. Tusson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Otis R. Bowen, M.d., Secretary of Health & Human Services,defendant-appellee
- 847 F.2d 284
John R. Tusson, pro se.
Nancy A. Nungesser, Asst. U.S. Atty., John Volz, U.S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Marguerite Lokey, DHHS, Office of the General Counsel, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Henry A. Mentz, Jr., Judge.
Before GEE, RUBIN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
A person entitled to social security disability payments was mentally disabled and unable to apply for benefits for a number of years. When, at length, he became able to do so, and filed his application, the Secretary determined that he had been disabled from 1977 to the time he filed his application, on December 6, 1982, and awarded him a period of disability and disability benefits, with a protective filing date of November 19, 1982, the date he first inquired about benefits. This made benefits payable retroactively for twelve months prior to his protective filing date.1 The claimant appealed, seeking retroactive benefits for the entire period during which he had been disabled, and asserting that the Secretary's failure to award them to him denied him equal protection of the law and that it was otherwise incorrect. He raises the same issues on appeal. For the reasons given by the district court, in its opinion published at 675 F.Supp. 1032 (E.D.La.1987), we AFFIRM the district court's summary judgment.
42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(b)