Hicks v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
393 F.2d 299 · 1968
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 16 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Cutler v. Weinberger (1975), Stark v. Weinberger (1974)
49 federal appellate · 16 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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Underwood v. Ribicoff · Hayes v. Celebrezze · Boyd v. Folsom
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before making a finding of a claimant’s ability or inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity as contemplated by the law, there is a duty to consider the objective medical facts, which are the clinical findings of examining or treating physicians divorced from their expert judgment or opinions as to the significance of the clinical findings; (2) the medical opinions of these physicians; (3) the subjective evidence of pain and disability testified to by the claimant and corroborated by other evidence; and (4) the claimant’s background, work history and present age. Id. at 302 (citations omitted).”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there (are) jobs available in the local economy which the claimant, considering his age, past experience and disability, (is) capable of performing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Court is not bound to the degrees of disability .found by the Compensation Commission.”). Thus, the ALJ is not required to address or use the disability rating in determining his findings. In any event, Dr. Cooney stated that the claimant was temporarily totally disabled until June 1995. (R. 133). 33 . The Commissioner also argues that Cook is distinguishable from this case because Cook involved an application for widow’s insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402 (e), whereas disabled wage earners receive social security benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423 (a). See id. at 1169 . It is argued, therefore, that Cook was decided under a different standard of disability, which "is based on medical evidence pertaining to physical or mental impairments alone; age, education, and work experience are not considered, nor is the availability of the national economy.”
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.