Havas v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
804 F.2d 783 · 1986
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Johnson v. Bowen (1987), Pratts v. Chater (1996)
25 federal appellate · 3 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 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Mongeur v. Heckler · Cutler 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule, which has been the law of this circuit for at least five years, provides that a treating physician’s opinion on the subject of medical disability, i.e., diagnosis and nature and degree of impairment, is; (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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“cannot constitute substantial evidence overriding the opinions of examining physicians. Assuming that the dictum in Havas should be treated as binding precedent, it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a situation in which a non-examining doctor would fashion an opinion out of thin air. As in the instant case, the non-examining doctor must of necessity base his opinion on hospital records, medical reports, x-rays, etc. Since such reports, standing alone might”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wallace v. Bowen · Hidalgo 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.