McDonald v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 559 · 1986
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2003 · most notably Barnhart Commissioner of Social Security v. Walton (2002), Newton v. Chater (1996)
7 federal appellate · 1 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. § 422 (§ 222 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Rush v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Sierakowski v. Weinberger · McMillen v. Califano · 517 F. Supp. 1314 - Goldstein v. Harris
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person may return to work after five but before twelve months from the onset of the disability without being penalized. That person, however, must be prepared to show that, at the time she returns to work and thereafter her disability is still expected to last at least twelve continuous months from its alleged onset date; otherwise, she will not receive benefits. In this connection, her return to work pursuant to a trial work period is not in itself any evidence that her disability has ended.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“disability ... ended at [some] time during the trial work period if the medical or other evidence shows that [Walker was] no longer disabled.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether an individual is actually disabled for twelve months as originally anticipated is not controlling with respect to the determination of disability. The Act requires only a prediction that the disability will continue for at least twelve consecutive months after the onset of the disability. The requirement is therefore forward-looking and is not to be nullified by hindsight. (Citation omitted). When an individual has been disabled for five consecutive months and suffers from an impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of twelve months, that person is entitled to disability benefits. And even after qualifying for such an entitlement, one may engage in a trial work period. . 42 U.S.C. § 422 (c)(3).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Shalala
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.