Bubnis v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.3d 177 · 1998
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Albert Shaw v. Shirley S. Chater, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (2000), Tejada v. Apfel (1999)
9 federal appellate · 4 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. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 424A (§ 224 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Schaal v. Apfel · Berry v. Schweiker · Powderly v. Schweiker · Yancey v. Apfel
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If for any month prior to the month in which an individual attains the age of 65— (1) such individual is entitled to benefits under section [223] and (2) such individual is entitled for such month to— (A) periodic benefits on account of his or her total or partial disability (whether or not permanent) under a workmen's compensation law or plan of the United States or a State, or (B) periodic benefits on account of his or her total or partial disability (whether or not permanent) under any other law or plan of the United States, a State, a political subdivision (as that term is used in section [218(b)(2)]), or an instrumentality of two or more States (as that term is used in section [218(g)]), other than (i) benefits payable under Title 38, (ii) benefits payable under a program of assistance which is based on need, (iii) benefits based on service all or substantially all of which was included under an agreement entered into by a State and the Commissioner of Social Security under section [218], and (iv) benefits under a law or plan of the United States based on service all or substantially all of which is employment as defined in section [210], the total of his benefits under section [223] for such month and of any benefits under section [202] for such month based on his wages and self-employment income shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the sum of— (3) such total of benefits under sections [223] and [202] for such month, and (4) such periodic benefit”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the quarter he became disabled or in a later quarter in which he was disabled, C.F.R. § 404.131(a). 19 A district court may set aside the Commissioner's determination that a claimant is not disabled only if the factual findings are not supported by”
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.