alt.social-security-disability

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:49:59 GMT, Windswept@Home (Jack) wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:11:41 -0500, Puddin' Man
> wrote:
>
>>This has to do with an SSDI "Pain" case recently denied by US Ct. of Appeals.
>>
>>I need the text of the decision in Ryder v. Morris. The full reference
>>(near as I can tell) is:
>>
>>Ryder v. Morris, 752 327, 332 (8th Cir.),
>>cert. denied, 471 . 1126, 86 L. Ed. 2d 276, 105 S. Ct. 2660 (1985)
>
>1) Case doesn't sound familiar but that may be due to an aging memory.

I dont think it was a "Biggie".

>2) Thinking back of the various Commissioners of SSA and Secretaries
>of HHS (formerly HEW), the names "Ryder" and "Morris" also don't ring
>a bell. One of the Secretaries or Commissihes should be named in the
>title.

Ordinarily the 2nd party named.

>3) Your reference above shows that the Supreme Court refused to hear
>it in 1985. So it can't be recent.

I am aware of that.

>4) The URL below contains the text of a medical malpractice case of
>Roberts v. Arkansas and several doctors. If you scroll down, you'll
>see an allusion to to Ryder v. Morris, 752 327, 332 (8th Cir.)
>but it doesn't really summarize the facts of the Ryder case or even
>suggest that it was SSDI.
>
>Little URL:
> /27x2or
>
>Big URL:
> /search?q=cache:YOHCH5S
>WidwJ: /opndir/
>97/10/ +752+ +327,
>+332+(8th+Cir.),&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

So you couldn't find the text of the decision in Ryder v. Morris
either. Thanks for looking.

The issue is whether the appeals court can ignore with impunity any/all
issues not put before lower court(s). They can do this with issues of
"fact". If possible, I need precedents in which it was -not- done
with issues of "law" ( . constitutional challenges).

My ref came from Ownbey v. Shalala:

We do not address the claims Ownbey asserts for the first time on appeal (that he met the
requirements of 20 . Pt. 404, Subpt. P, §§ and (1993)) as he has not shown
that a manifest injustice will otherwise result. See Ryder v. Morris, 752 327, 332
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 . 1126, 86 L. Ed. 2d 276, 105 S. Ct. 2660 (1985). In any
event, we would conclude that Ownbey did not meet the requirements of either section.

If it is referred to all over the legal landscape, why the hull can't
anybody find the actual decision? Any ideas??

Thx,
P

"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens!"
-Friedrich Schiller