Brown v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
44 F.3d 931 · 1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Ventura v. Shalala (1995), Ellison v. Barnhart (2003)
5 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Central Intelligence Agency v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity · Cowart v. Schweiker · Clark v. Schweiker
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Clark indicates a slightly different standard for reviewing whether a claimant received a full and fair hearing depending on whether the unrepresented claimant effectively waived his right to representation. If there has been a waiver of right to counsel, claimant must show "clear prejudice or unfairness” caused by lack of counsel in order to prove that he was denied a full and fair hearing and is entitled to a remand to the Secretary.... If the right to counsel was not waived, the ,AU is under a "special duty” to develop a full and fair hearing by conscientiously probing into all relevant facts____ "This special duty requires, essentially, a record which shows that the claimant was not prejudiced by lack of counsel.”... However, under this standard, “we are not required to determine that the presence of counsel would necessarily have resulted in any specific benefits in the handling of the case before the ALJ,””
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.