Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 F.2d 803 - Davidson v. Gardner

Davidson v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

370 F.2d 803 · 1966

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
states following
September 1989
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently September 1989 · most notably Broadbent v. Harris (1983), Sorenson v. Weinberger (1975)

38 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

290196619701980decided

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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Simpson v. United States · Thomas v. Celebrezze · Underwood v. Ribicoff · Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry

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

  1. “(B)ecause of the helter-skelter nature of the records in these cases, ... (courts must) not adopt the facile way of disposing of an injured applicant’s case by reference to, and reliance upon, the statements of one or two physicians, as against the considered statements of many physicians and surgeons who have had more opportunity of examining and treating the applicant, more occasions of making medical reports upon him, and more expertness in diagnosis .... Davidson v. Gardner, 370 F.2d 803 , 823 (6th Cir., 1966).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(It) defines 'disability' (except for certain cases of blindness) as the 'inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.' 47 "Section 223(d)(2)(A) further provides that 'an individual . . . shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work. For purposes of the preceding sentence (with respect to any individual), 'work which exists in the national economy' means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The Appeals Council was not sure what caused appellee’s impairment, but held that ‘although it is not absolutely certain that the claimant has a lumbar disc protrusion, surgical intervention would correct this condition if confirmed.’ (Emphasis supplied.) There was expert evidence also that appellee might require a spinal fusion. Everyone knows that a surgical operation to correct a lumbar disc protrusion, or for a spinal fusion, is a serious and painful and, often, a dangerous operation. If appellee did not have a lumbar disc protrusion, implicitly surgery would not be necessary, and would not correct his impairment. Not knowing whether he had a lumbar disc protrusion or not, the Appeals Council decided to deny appellee disability benefits, if he did not undergo a serious operation for an impairment that he may not have been suffering from at all, on the ground that regardless of the cause of his impairment, he should submit to an operation for an ailment they guessed that he might have.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.