Hodge v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Conditions for reduction; computation 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 [ 42 U.S.C. § 423 ], 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 the total of his benefits under [ 42 U.S.C. § 423 ] for such month ... shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the sum of— (3) such total of benefits under [ 42 U.S.C. § 423 ] and [ 42 U.S.C. § 402 ] for such month, and (4) such periodic benefits payable (and actually paid) for such month to such individual under such laws or plans, exceeds the higher of— (5) 80 per centum of his "average current earnings”, or (6) the total of such individual’s disability insurance benefits under [ 42 U.S.C. § 423 ] for such month and of any monthly insurance benefits under [ 42 U.S.C. § 402 ] for such month based on his wages and self-employment income, prior to reduction under this section. (b) Reduction where benefits payable on other than monthly basis If any periodic benefit for a total or partial disability under [a workmen’s compensation law or plan of the United States or a state] is payable on other than a monthly basis (ex-eluding a benefit payable as a lump sum except to the extent that it is a commutation of, or a substitute for, periodic pa”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bubnis v. Apfel · 952 F. Supp. 659 - Frost v. Chater

2. “[U]nder Oregon state law Hodge’s lump-sum award is simply a substitute for a stream of payments for the remainder of his working life. Because under 42 U.S.C. § 424a(a) this period is presumed to extend until a person turns 65, we apply that date for the purpose of determining the monthly offsets. Accordingly, the best approximation of the monthly offset rate here, indeed the only possible approximation of that rate, is the amount arrived at by dividing the lump-sum award by the number of months between the date of the lump-sum award and the date Hodge reaches the age of 65.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bubnis v. Apfel

3. “a. The rate specified in the [lump sum] award. If the [lump sum] award specifies a rate based on life expectancy, use that rate to prorate the [lump sum].... b. The periodic rate paid prior to the [lump sum] if no rate is specified in the [lump sum] award. e. If [workers’ compensation], the State’s [workers’ compensation] maximum in effect on the date of injury. This figure can be used if no rate is specified in the award and there was no preced- ■ ing periodic benefit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bubnis v. Apfel