McLeod v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.3d 881 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 12 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 38 U.S.C. § 7261 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Sanders · Bayliss v. Barnhart · Silva Tonapetyan v. William A. Halter, Commissioner of Social Security Administration · Stout v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[WJhere the circumstances of the case show a substantial likelihood of prejudice, remand is appropriate so that the agency can decide whether re-consideration is necessary. By contrast, where harmlessness is clear and not a borderline question, remand for reconsideration is not appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Some features of the record suggest the error was harmless, for example, the fact that Simmons has long sought benefits and has a long history of medical examinations. But other features — e.g., the fact that her left-ear hearing was concededly service connected and has continuously deteriorated over time, and the fact that the VA had scheduled a further examination of her right ear that (had notice been given) might have revealed further left-ear hearing loss— suggest the opposite. Given the uncertainties, we believe it is appropriate to remand this case so that the Veterans Court can decide whether reconsideration is necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is quite clear that no presumptions operate, and we must exercise judgment in light of the circumstances of the case.” Id. We remanded to the ALJ for a harmlessness determination, even though it was not clear from the record that the potentially omitted evidence — a VA disability rating — even existed. McLeod is limited to situations where the record is insufficient for the court to make its own prejudice determination, and remand is for the ALJ to determine the harmfulness of the omission in the first instance. It makes good sense that, in such a situation,”
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.