Schmidt v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
496 F.3d 833 · 2007
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Craft v. Astrue (2008), Elder v. Astrue (2008)
23 federal appellate · 6 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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Stephens v. Heckler · Diaz v. Chater · Hattie Dixon v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Powers v. Apfel
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'While the treating physician's opinion is important, it is not the final word on a claimant's disability.' " Schmidt v. Astrue , 496 F.3d 833 , 842 (7th Cir. 2007). As the Seventh Circuit has stressed, " '[t]he patient's regular physician may want to do a favor for a friend and client, and so the treating physician may too quickly find disability.' " Id. (quoting Stephens v. Heckler , 766 F.2d 284 (7th Cir.1985). See also Hofslien v. Barnhart , 439 F.3d 375 , 377 (7th Cir.2006) ("the fact that the claimant is the treating physician's patient also detracts from the weight of that physician's testimony, since, as is well known, many physicians (including those most likely to attract patients who are thinking of seeking disability benefits) will often bend over backwards to assist a patient in obtaining benefits,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the reviewing authority to determine first whether the claimant has a 'medically determinable mental impairment.' If the claimant is found to have such an impairment, the reviewing authority must 'rate the degree of functional limitation resulting from the impairment(s) in accordance with paragraph (c),' which specifies four broad functional areas: (1) activities of daily living; (2) social functioning; (3) concentration, persistence, or pace; and (4) episodes of decompensation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As we previously have noted, the patient's regular physician may want to do a favor for a friend and client, and so the treating physician may too quickly find disability.”
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.