Schisler v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 76 · 1986
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Schaal v. Apfel (1998), Johnson v. Bowen (1987)
36 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 421 (§ 221 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Califano v. Yamasaki · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Bailey v. Butcher · Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co.
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence; and (ii) entitled to some extra weight because the treating physician is usually more familiar with a claimant’s medical condition than are other physicians, although resolution of genuine conflicts between the opinion of the treating physician, with its extra weight, and any substantial evidence to the contrary remains the responsibility of the fact-finder.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“state in relevant publications to be determined by the district court that adjudicators at all levels, state and federal, are to apply the treating physician rule of this circuit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'wealthy woman,' " Appellant's Supp.App. Vol. II at 708. The consultant also thought her motivation to return to work was very poor. 13 The Appeals Council also agreed with the ALJ's observations concerning the opinions of the other treating physicians. The ALJ noted that Dr. Kendall Gerdes acknowledged Ms. Hando could tolerate infrequent exposure to chemicals. He further observed that Dr. Theron Randolph never stated that Ms. Hando is completely unable to work. He also noted that Dr. Montanaro thought the results of tests performed by Dr. Laurine Ludwig were questionable because the tests were based on a methodology that has not been validated. 14 The treating physician's opinion on the subject of disability is 15 "binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence; and ... [is] entitled to some extra weight because the treating physician is usually more familiar with a claimant's medical condition than are other physicians, although resolution of genuine conflicts between the opinion of the treating physician, with its extra weight, and any substantial evidence to the contrary remains the responsibility of the fact-finder.”
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.