Paskel v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 425 (§ 225 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Batterton v. Francis · Ristaino v. Ross · Social Security Board v. Nierotko · Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“increase the likelihood that [the recipient would] be permanently removed from the disability benefit rolls.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dion v. Heckler · Paskel v. Heckler“All individuals who reside in Pennsylvania whose Social Security and SSI benefits the Social Security Administration has considered, or is presently considering, without making appropriate and mandated determinations to continue disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 425 (b) and 1383(a)(6), while the individual was enrolled or is enrolled in a Vocational Rehabilitation Program.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paskel v. Heckler“[a]t the time [they] began participating in the [vocational rehabilitation] program ... were not expected to recover medically before the scheduled completion date of the program.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paskel v. Heckler
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.