The following excerpt is from Estes v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 776 F.2d 1436 (9th Cir. 1985):
The majority overturns this finding, but it does not point out why. Instead, the majority relies on the simple existence of multiple sclerosis to arrive at its finding of disability. The existence of the disease alone, however, does not constitute a "disability" unless it prevents substantial gainful activity, Dunlap v. Harris, 649 F.2d 637, 638-39 (8th Cir.1981), and the majority does not explain how the symptoms it describes so operate.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.