Hidalgo v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.2d 294 · 1987
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Pratts v. Chater (1996), Schisler v. Sullivan (1993)
14 federal appellate ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 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 · Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs · Lewy v. Weinberger · Gary Aircraft Corp. v. United States · Parker 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence and (2) entitled to some extra weight, even if contradicted by substantial evidence, because the treating source is inherently more familiar with a claimant's medical condition than are other sources.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[a] corollary to the treating physician rule is that the opinion of a non-examining doctor by itself cannot constitute the contrary substantial evidence required to override the treating physician's diagnosis.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the treating physician rule] has been our rule for the past 15 years ... [and] during those years we have observed the rule consistently misapplied. In fact, two years ago we observed that the cases in which we have reversed the denial of benefits due to the AU’s failure to apply properly the treating physician rule are ‘almost legion.’ DeLeon v. Secretary of HHS, 734 F.2d 930, 937 (2d Cir.1984). ‘Legion’ should no longer be modified by ‘almost.’ We have relied upon the treating physician rule in 23 cases in which the administrative decision denying disability benefits has been either reversed or remanded ... (citations omitted). We cite these cases to emphasize how often the rule has been expounded, and also to indicate some sense of frustration at how little, if any, impact our decisions have had on the Secretary and his administrative fact-finders.”
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.