This is an appeal by the Social Security Board from a judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington 1 reversing a decision of the Board.
Dwight J. LaLone, the wage earner, died on November 20, 1942. On December 7, 1942, plaintiff-appellee filed an application under the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., for child’s insurance benefits on behalf of four infant children. See Section 202(c) of the Act, as аmended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(c). The Bureau of Old Age and Survivors Insurance of the Social Security Board twice denied her application оn the ground that Dwight J. LaLone was not an employee of F. S. Barrett & Co., his alleged employer, from August 1, 1938, to May 1, 1942. Plaintiff thereafter wаs granted a hearing before a referee on November 15, 1943, and her claim was denied on the ground that Dwight J. LaLone was not аn employee of Barrett & Co., but was a partner or joint venturer with that company in the Barrett-LaLone Insurance Agency and was, therefore, not eligible to be classified as an employee under the Act. See Sections 209(a) and (b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. A. § 409(a, b) ; cf. Auten v. Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission,
Plaintiff thereupon appealed to the Appeals Council of the Social Security Board. On March 11, 1944, the Council affirmed *44 the decision of the referee and adopted his findings and decision as its own. Under the Board’s practice the decision of the Appeals Council became the final decision of the Board.
Having exhausted her administrative remedies, plaintiff instituted this action in the District Court against the United States 2 and the Social Security Board to review, pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), a denial of the child’s insurance benefits. The Board has appealed from the District Court’s adverse judgment under Section 205(g) of the Act and Section 128 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225.
Wе do not deem it necessary to relate in detail the facts as found by the referee showing the relationship between LаLone and Barrett & Co. Upon the record before us, we believe that the trial court misconceived its function in this type оf action.
Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act provides in part: “The court shall have power to enter, upon thе pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Board, with or without remanding the cause for rehearing. The findings of the Board as to any fact, if ■supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive * *
Under this section of the Social Security Act providing for appeals from an administrative board, as under other similar acts, the boаrd’s findings of fact must be sustained if the court finds they are supported by substantial evidence. This same finality extends to the Board’s inferenсes and conclusions from the evidence if a substantial basis is found for them. Gray v. Powell,
The District Court, in reversing the board’s decision, emphasized certain aspects of the evidence before the referee and found that in the light of this evidence the referee failed to . follow the applicable regulation.
3
In other instancеs the District Court drew contrary inferences from conflicting evidence where there was ample warrant in the record for the referee’s conclusions. See cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph, especially Comm. v. Scottish American Investment Co., Inc., supra,
The lower court also found that the referee analyzed the relationship betwеen La-Lone and Barrett & Co. on the basis of the old common law concept of employee-employer аnd not on the more liberal interpretation of this relationship as provided in N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publications, supra, and such cases аs Walling v. American Needlecrafts, 6 Cir.,
*45
Whether Barrett & Co. was a partner or an employer of LaLone is partially a question of interpreting the applicable statutes and regulations and partially a matter of construing surrounding facts. The board’s decisions interpreting the Act and regulations are entitled to weight; the board’s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are cоnclusive. Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act; Gray v. Powell, supra, and associated cases above; Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States,
The judgment of the district court is reversed and case remanded with instructions to enter a judgment affirming the decision of the Social Security Board.
Notes
A motion to dismiss the action as to the defendant United States because in violation of Section 205(h) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(h), was not acted upon by the District Court. However, nо order was entered against the United States and since the action has 'been carried on solely to review the deсision of the Social Security Board and consent to sue the United States is expressly withheld by Section 205(h), we will not deem as consequential the defect in joining the United States as a party to the proceeding.
Section 403.804 of the Social Security Board Regulations No. 3, defining employment.