Schisler v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
3 F.3d 563 · 1993
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 178 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Rosa v. Callahan (1999), Schaal v. Apfel (1998)
10 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Bowen v. Yuckert · Heckler v. Campbell · Poland v. Arizona · Schweiker v. Gray Panthers
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 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, we give more weight to opinions by your treating sources.... 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.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Evaluation of physicians’ testimony is governed by the “treating physician rule.” As specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (d), 416.927(d), the rule provides that the treating physician’s opinion as to the claimant’s disability is controlling if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Even if the treating physician’s opinion is retrospective, it will be binding unless contradicted by other medical evidence or by “overwhelmingly compelling” non-medical evidence.”
5 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.