Fernandez v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““This circuit has recognized that in cases of this type claimants’ right to subpoena and cross-examine experts submitting reports adverse to their claims is important, particularly when there is ‘substantial reliance’ on the report by the hearing examiner. Gullo v. Califano, 609 F.2d 649, 950 (2d Cir. 1979).... While it is true in theory that the claimant could have subpoenaed Dr. Herrera, it could not be expected that she could do so in reality.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 738 F. Supp. 716 - Stieberger v. Sullivan · 548 F. Supp. 481 - Santiago v. Schweiker

2. “'scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore [by the subpoena process] all the relevant facts ....' " Id. at 43 (citation omitted). That the ALJ undertook this task, but did not recognize he had the means to complete it, does not cure the procedural defect in this case, but only demonstrates it may have been inadvertent. 25 The Secretary contends Fernandez only requires that "some”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Treadwell v. Schweiker

3. “plainly unequal to the task of developing [their] own record[s].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Treadwell v. Schweiker