Burnett v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
756 F.2d 621 · 1985
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Willis v. Sullivan (1991), 78 F. Supp. 2d 944 - McDannel v. Apfel (1999)
32 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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. § 1320A (§ 1127 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 406 (§ 206 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 424A (§ 224 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Heckler v. Campbell · Batterton v. Francis · Schweiker v. Hogan · United States v. Alcea Band · Testa v. United States
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Past-due benefits” means the total amount of benefits payable under Title II of the Act to all beneficiaries that has accumulated because of a favorable administrative or judicial determination or decision, up to but not including the month the determination or decision is made.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [I]n any case where an individual ... is entitled to benefits under subchapter II of this chapter that were not paid in the months in ' which they were regularly due ... then any benefits ... shall be reduced by an amount equal to so much of the supplemental security income benefits ... as would not have been paid with respect to such individual ... if he had received such benefits under subchapter II of this chapter in the month or months in which they were regularly due____ For purposes of this section, the term "supplemental security income benefits" shall mean benefits paid or payable by the Secretary under sub-chapter XVI of this chapter____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court recognized that this method of calculating the withholding amount would necessarily reduce attorney’s fees, thereby constituting a financial disincentive to representing disability claimants. The court was unpersuaded that the financial disincentive mandated a contrary result, however. The court observed that ‘the Secretary’s approach ... does produce a public benefit because it preserves a greater portion of the benefits for the claimant.’ The court also found that the Secretary’s approach does not disrupt the primary financial incentive of § 406. The court concluded that the primary financial incentive provided by § 406 is not the amount of attorney’s fees but is the direct payment of fees. Pursuant to § 406, the Secretary must pay the withheld attorney’s fees directly to the attorney, thereby avoiding problems of collection from the claimant. The court correctly stated that this financial incentive is unaffected by the Secretary’s method of calculating the withholding amount. Also, the court stated that ‘computation of attorney’s fees on the basis of the net amount of benefits is consistent with the Congressional goal of insuring that disability benefits are not consumed by attorney’s fees.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baker v. Bowen
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.