Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 761 F.2d 1538 - Kelley v. Heckler

Kelley v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

761 F.2d 1538 · 1985

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Craig v. Chater (1996), Graham v. Apfel (1997)

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1001985199020002010decided

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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Central Intelligence Agency v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity · Bloodsworth v. Heckler · Cowart v. Schweiker · Simpson v. Schweiker · Clark 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Clark indicates a slightly different standard for reviewing whether a claimant received a full and fair hearing depending on whether the unrepresented claimant effectively waived his right to representation. If there has been a waiver of right to counsel, claimant must show "clear prejudice or unfairness” caused by lack of counsel in order to prove that he was denied a full and fair hearing and is entitled to a remand to the Secretary.... If the right to counsel was not waived, the ,AU is under a "special duty” to develop a full and fair hearing by conscientiously probing into all relevant facts____ "This special duty requires, essentially, a record which shows that the claimant was not prejudiced by lack of counsel.”... However, under this standard, “we are not required to determine that the presence of counsel would necessarily have resulted in any specific benefits in the handling of the case before the ALJ,””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although a claimant bears the burden of demonstrating an inability to return to his past relevant work, the Secretary has an obligation to develop a full and fair record. Where there is no evidence of the physical requirements and demands of the claimant’s past work and no detailed description of the required duties was solicited or proffered, the Secretary cannot properly determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “at least requires a showing that the ALJ did not have all of the relevant evidence before him in the record (which would include relevant testimony from claimant), or that the ALJ did not consider all of the evidence in the record in reaching his decision.”
    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.