Garrison v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
765 F.2d 710 · 1985
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Delgado v. Bowen (1986), Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1992)
34 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Richardson v. Perales · Heckler v. Campbell · Mathews v. Weber · Landess v. Weinberger
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“how particular medical impairments produce reductions in physical exertion, and how such reductions in exertion affect the ability to work.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ability to observe the claimant over an extended period of time is essential to understanding”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Garrison’s impairment can be stated in precise terms. The readings of the pulmonary function studies have known meanings, and we think it permissible for the agency to show these readings to other physicians and ask what they mean for a person’s ability to perform particular tasks. Physicians with the opportunity to evaluate many such readings are in a better position than general practitioners to translate readings to assessments of the limits on capacity to work____ If the agency were required to credit the treating physicians’ impressions about whether these breathing difficulties were “serious enough” to make their patients disabled, then the determinations would depend more on the experience, intuitions, and even penchant for charity of the treating physicians than on the actual medical impairments of the claimants. Some people with a 40% ventilatory capacity would be deemed able to do medium work, while others with a 75% capacity would not. The agency’s approach, using reviewing physicians, reduces the disparity.”
2 later decisions 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.