In other words, clinical evidence is evidence applying to either objective or subjective symptoms. Homm v. Gardner, 267 F. Supp. 926 (D.C.Mo.). "Clinical verification" or "clinical evidence" can only mean the recognition, assessment, and evaluation by a physician of subjective or objective symptoms. "Clinical" is defined as: "Pertaining to or founded on actual observation and treatment of patients, as distinguished from theoretical or experimental."

Ross v. Gardner, 365 F.2d 554 (C.A.6)," Walston v. Gardner, 381 F.2d 580 (C.A.6), (decided Aug. 7, 1967). In Homm v. Gardner, D.C., 267 F. Supp. 926, decided May 8, 1967, the court said: "In both the recent cases of Pollard [Pollard v. Gardner, D.C., 267 F. Supp. 890, decided April 17, 1967], and Underwood [Underwood v. Gardner, D.C., 267 F. Supp. 802, decided May 4, 1967], this Court applied the teaching of Marion v. Gardner (8th Cir. 1966), 359 F.2d 175. That case establishes that if the Secretary's regulation is more restrictive than the standards provided by the federal statute, the regulation is void. Pollard considered Section 404.1513 of the Regulations; both Marion and Underwood considered Section 404.1519(c)(2) (iii).

The recognition, assessment and evaluation of subjective complaints of pain are integral parts of a proper clinical diagnosis. Homm v. Gardner, 267 F. Supp. 926, 929 (W.D.Mo. 1967). We think it clear that medical opinion need not necessarily be supported by "objective" clinical or laboratory findings.

The principles and standards applicable to this case have been stated in numerous recent cases decided by this Court. See the reported cases of Pollard v. Gardner (W.D.Mo., 1967) 267 F. Supp. 890; Underwood v. Gardner (W.D. Mo., 1967) 267 F. Supp. 802; Homm v. Gardner (W.D.Mo., 1967) 267 F. Supp. 926; Lee v. Gardner (W.D.Mo., 1967) 267 F. Supp. 578; Weaver v. Finch (W.D. Mo., 1969) 306 F. Supp. 1185; and Haskins v. Finch (W.D.Mo., 1969) 307 F. Supp. 1272, for examples. We therefore need only to state the factual circumstances of this case and to apply the law consistent with the principles and standards stated in the cases cited.

Further, when the application of such regulations would be inconsistent with the statute or would further restrict its requirements, the regulation is invalid. Marion v. Gardner (C.A.8) 359 F.2d 175; Homm v. Gardner (W.D.Mo.) 267 F. Supp. 926, 927; Lee v. Gardner (W.D.Mo.) 267 F. Supp. 578; Pollard v. Gardner, supra; Domann v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, supra.

The hearing examiner was required to look to the specific language of the statute, rather than the more restrictive language of the defendant's regulation, in making his findings. The manner in which the aforecited regulation was read and applied herein was inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2), (4). "* * * `[T]he hearing examiner, in effect, read restrictions into the statute that were not provided by the Congress.' * * *" Branham v. Gardner, 6 Cir., 383 F.2d 614, 629, citing from Homm v. Gardner, D.C.Mo. (1967), 267 F. Supp. 926, 929. It was not necessary for Mr. Taylor's impairment or impairments to have been so severe as to have caused him to be bedridden or to have rendered him wholly helpless before he was entitled to benefits under his claim.

Application of that regulation in a manner quite similar to the application of that and other regulations fully discussed in three cases recently decided by this Court requires that the decision of the Secretary be reversed. See Pollard v. Gardner, D.C., 267 F. Supp. 890, decided April 14, 1967, Underwood v. Gardner, D.C., 267 F. Supp. 802, decided May 4, 1967, and Homm v. Gardner, D.C., 267 F. Supp. 926, decided May 8, 1967. I.