Dotson v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 80 · 1983
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Loza v. Apfel (2000), Harrell v. Bowen (1988)
34 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 551 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co. · Patti v. Schweiker · General Building Contractors Ass'n v. Pennsylvania · Simpson v. Schweiker
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““once the claimant has introduced evidence that his or her condition remains essentially the same as it was at the time of the earlier determination, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that his or her condition remains disabling____ The presumption of continuing disability does not affect the ultimate burden of proof. It imposes on the Secretary only the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as many 'bites of the apple' as he wants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... In reviewing the appeal of an initial disability case, we must consider whether the Secretary’s finding of no disability is supported by substantial evidence. However, in light of principles of administrative res judicata, this is not the proper inquiry in a benefits continuation case. We must ascertain whether the Secretary’s finding of improvement to the point of no disability is supported by substantial evidence. In each case, the burden remains with the claimant to prove the existence of a disability____ If, however, the evidence in a continuation case is substantially the same as the evidence had been in the initial disability benefits request case, benefits must be continued. Otherwise, termination of benefits will often depend not on a finding of changed condition, but simply on the whim of a changed AU____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holden 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.