alt.social-security-disability

hey pm [paul from the pain group] - sorry to read of your problem here

for the ownbey case go to

/cgi-bin/ /socsec_case_full/query=%5Bjump!3A!275+f!2E3d+342!27%5D/doc/%7B@18340%7D/hits_only?

/36ouuy

Puddin' Man wrote:
>
> 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