Polaski v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “all persons (1) residing in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa or Arkansas, (2) who have applied for Title II or Title XVI benefits, (3) who allege that they are unable to work in whole or in part as a result of pain or other subjective complaints, and (4) who have received an adverse administrative decision on their claims for benefits as described below: a) in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, those persons who received an adverse decision on their claims, at any level of the administrative review process, between January 30, 1984 and July 17, 1984, inclusive; b) in Arkansas, those persons who received an adverse decision on their claims at the Administrative Law Judge or Appeals Council levels between February 20, 1984 and July 17, 1984, inclusive; c) in Iowa, those persons who received an adverse decision on their claims at any level of the administrative review process between November 26, 1983 and July 17, 1984, inclusive;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 606 F. Supp. 549 - Polaski v. Heckler

2. “For several years now, the courts of this circuit have found themselves embroiled in an increasingly frustrating effort to persuade the Secretary to follow their decisions regarding certain legal standards under the disability insurance program. The Secretary, in an apparent effort to reduce the number of disability beneficiaries, has taken a more restrictive approach in recent years in determining eligibility. Often, the Secretary has stuck to this restrictive path even when it has led to direct contravention of federal court edicts. By proceeding in such a manner, the Secretary also has disregarded the fundamental policies at the heart of the disability program____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 633 F. Supp. 846 - Linquist v. Bowen

3. “In Lopez v. Heckler, supra [ 725 F.2d 1489 ] the Ninth Circuit directed the Secretary to apply the medical improvement standard on a class-wide basis. Subsequently, the agency began a review of the cases of those individual whose benefits had been terminated under the Secre tary’s improper current disability standard. Of these individuals, 73% were found to be disabled under this new and proper standard. In addition, the termination rate in Oregon, covered by the Lopez decision, has been reduced to only 12.3% compared to the national average of 45.2%. Affidavit of Elena H. Ackel, attorney in the Lopez case. Id. at 1112.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 592 F. Supp. 599 - Turner v. Heckler