Snell v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
177 F.3d 128 · 1999
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 269 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Halloran v. Barnhart (2004), Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security (2004)
21 federal appellate · 11 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
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States · Schaal v. Apfel · Mongeur 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 269 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] treating physician's statement that the claimant is disabled cannot itself be determinative”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“but it does not exempt administrative decisionmakers from their obligation, under Schaal and [20 CFR] ¶ 404.1527(d)(2), to explain why a treating physician’s opinions are not being credited. The requirement of reason-giving exists, in part, to let claimants understand the disposition of their cases, even — and perhaps especially— when those dispositions are unfavorable. A claimant like Snell, who knows that her physician has deemed her disabled, might be especially bewildered when told by an administrative bureaucracy that she is not, unless some reason for the agency’s decision is supplied. Snell is not entitled to have Dr. Cooley’s [her treating physician’s] opinion on the ultimate question of disability be treated as controlling, but she is entitled to be told why the Commissioner has decided — as under appropriate circumstances is his right — to disagree with Dr. Cooley.”
4 later decisions 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.