Torres v. Secretary of Health & Human Services’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 1136 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 19 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Harrell v. Bowen (1988), Colon v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1989)
16 federal appellate · 19 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 Califano v. Sanders · Bowen v. City of New York · Lawson v. Credithrift of America · McGowen v. Harris · Lichter v. Bowen
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Absent a colorable constitutional claim not present here, a district court does not have jurisdiction to review the Secretary's discretionary decision not to reopen an earlier adjudication.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ALJ was entitled to make a threshold inquiry and review the evidence presented by the claimant in order to resolve the reopening.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the new medical improvement standard only applies prospectively to review determinations by the Secretary made after the Reform Act's enactment on October 9, 1984. The termination decision here became final before that date and was affirmed by the district court on March 28, 1984. Since subsequent judicial review was not sought, no request for judicial review was pending which would implicate the exceptions stated in Secs. 2(d)(2)(C) and (D). Section 2 of the Reform Act does not authorize reopenings and does not provide an independent jurisdictional basis to review the Secretary's refusal to reopen a prior decision. 38 Furthermore, in light of the reversal of the district court's Tustin order, the notation by the SSA employee that Harrell was to be protected from refiling to August 6, 1984 only obligated the Secretary to consider that date as the starting point for any subsequent applications. IV. 39 The next issue is whether substantial evidence supports the Secretary's denial of disability and SSI benefits to Harrell. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 423(d) states in part: 40 (1) The term "disability”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrell 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.