## Facts

- Pedro Perales, a 34-year-old truck driver, applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits after a 1966 back injury and surgery.
- The state agency denied the claim, and Perales requested a hearing before a Social Security hearing examiner.
- At the hearing, Perales and a supporting physician testified in person that he was disabled.
- The examiner admitted several written reports from other physicians who examined Perales at the agency’s request; some suggested no disabling impairment and raised concerns such as psychological overlay or exaggeration.
- Perales objected to the written reports as hearsay but did not request subpoenas to compel the reporting physicians to appear for cross-examination.
- The hearing examiner found Perales not disabled, relying substantially on the written medical reports and other record evidence; the Appeals Council affirmed.
- On judicial review, the district court remanded, questioning whether uncross-examined medical reports could be substantial evidence when contradicted by live testimony.
- The Fifth Circuit held the reports did not constitute substantial evidence under these circumstances, and the Secretary sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether written medical reports from physicians who examined the claimant can constitute “substantial evidence” supporting a nondisability finding under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), despite being hearsay and not subject to cross-examination.
2. Whether admitting and relying on such reports in Social Security disability hearings violates due process when the claimant has, but does not use, subpoena power to obtain cross-examination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- Written reports by examining physicians may constitute substantial evidence supporting denial of disability benefits, notwithstanding hearsay character and lack of cross-examination, when the record as a whole reasonably supports the agency’s finding.
- The Social Security hearing process, including receipt of documentary medical evidence and the claimant’s opportunity to request subpoenas, does not violate due process.
- A claimant’s failure to invoke available subpoena procedures substantially weakens a due process objection based on the absence of cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- “Substantial evidence” review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) evaluates the evidentiary sufficiency of the administrative record as a whole and does not impose trial-type admissibility requirements.
- Social Security disability hearings may receive relevant documentary evidence, including medical reports, under a flexible evidentiary framework consistent with administrative practice.
- Documentary medical reports from licensed physicians who examined the claimant may be treated as reliable and probative evidence capable of supporting an agency finding.
- Due process is satisfied where the claimant has notice of the evidence, an opportunity to appear and present evidence, and access to subpoena procedures to secure adverse witnesses for questioning.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an ALJ may deny Social Security disability benefits based on written reports of examining physicians as substantial evidence, and that reliance on such reports does not violate due process when the claimant could have subpoenaed and questioned the reporting doctors but did not.


Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971)