Davis v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.2d 1324 · 1979
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2006 · most notably Bloodsworth v. Heckler (1983), Brand v. Secretary of Department of Health Education and Welfare (1980)
14 federal appellate · 2 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 DePaepe v. Richardson · Hayes v. Celebrezze · Gaultney v. Weinberger · Laffoon v. Califano · Kirkland v. Weinberger
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . These facts cry out for confirmation or refutation by a qualified expert psychiatrist. . . ” ( 599 F.2d at 1326 ) “. . . Having accepted that Mrs. Davis was suffering from unexplained pain, the administrative law judge could not simply deny the claim without obtaining a consultative examination by a psychiatrist pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 . ‘If the [administrative law judge] does not have before him sufficient facts on which to make an informed decision, his decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ . . ” ( 599 F.2d at 1327 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because of the Act's emphasis on clinically demonstrable evidence of disability, a physician's statement that a claimant is or is not 'disabled' is entitled to weight only to the extent that it is supported by medically acceptable diagnostic data.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Pain alone, of course, may be disabling, even when a medical cause for the pain is not objectively discernible, and an administrative law judge must consider subjective testimony of pain by the claimant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.