Harper v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
813 F.2d 737 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Muse v. Sullivan (1991), Smith v. Berryhill (2019)
13 federal appellate · 2 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)
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Weinberger v. Salfi · Benjamin v. United States · Bloodsworth v. Heckler · Dietsch 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Secretary has established a regulatory system for administrative review, leading up to a final decision that may then be appealed to the district court. The process is begun when an individual files a claim with the SSA for benefits. This claim is either granted or denied, creating an initial determination. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1404 to 416.1405. Next, the claimant must file for and receive a request for reconsideration. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1407 to 416.1422. The Secretary reviews the claim again, and then issues a reconsidered determination. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1420 . After obtaining the initial and reconsidered determinations, a dissatisfied claimant may file for an evidentiary hearing before an ALJ. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1429 to 416.1468. If the claimant still objects to the decision, he or she may appeal the ALJ’s determination to the Appeals Council. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1467 to 416.1483. The decision rendered at the initial, reconsideration, and ALJ stage is binding on the claimant unless further administrative review with the Appeals Council is sought within 60 days. These four steps exhaust the claimant’s administrative remedies. Following this exhaustion of the administrative remedies with a final decision being rendered by the Appeals Council, judicial review may be sought in the district court. 20 C.F.R. §§ 16.1400 and 416.1481. See also Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 , 97 S.Ct. 980, 986 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192, 201 (1977) (“Section 205(”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]enying your request to extend the time period for requesting review of a determination or a decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“section 405(g) referred to decisions where a hearing was mandatory, not discretionary.”
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.