Grebenick v. Chater’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 1193 · 1997
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 20 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably United States Hampton v. Leibach (2003), Parker v. Astrue (2010)
14 federal appellate · 20 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Polaski v. Heckler · Heckler v. Edwards · DeLorme v. Sullivan · Smith v. Shalala · Basinger v. Heckler
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]ith slowly progressive impairments,[ 23 ] it is sometimes impossible to obtain medical evidence establishing the precise date an impairment became disabling. Determining the proper onset date is particularly difficult, when, for example, the alleged onset and the date last worked are far in the past and adequate medical records are not available. In such cases, it will be necessary to infer the onset date from the medical and other evidence that describe the history and symptomatology of the disease process.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the medical evidence is ambiguous and a retroactive inference is necessary, SSR 83-20 requires the ALJ to call upon the services of a medical advisor to insure that the determination of onset is based upon a `legitimate medical basis'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“PURPOSE: To state the policy and describe the relevant evidence to be considered when establishing the onset date of disability under the provisions of titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act) and implementing regulations .... INTRODUCTION: In addition to determining that an individual is disabled, the decision maker must also establish the onset date of disability. In many claims the onset date is critical; it may affect the period for which the individual can be paid and may even be determinative of whether the individual is entitled to or eligible for any benefits.... POLICY STATEMENT: The onset date of disability is the first day an individual is disabled as defined in the Act and the regulations.... A title II worker cannot be found disabled under the Act unless insured status is also met at a time when the evidence establishes the presence of a disabling condition(s)....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.