Doyle v. Secretary of Health & Human Services’s Empirical Analysis
848 F.2d 296 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Mikes v. Straus (2001), United States v. Staula (1996)
17 federal appellate · 6 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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Paul v. Davis · Connally v. General Construction Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Exhaustion] allows the agency to develop a factual record, to apply its expertise to a problem, to'exercisé its’discre tion, and to, correct its own mistakes, all before a court will intervene. Insofar as specialized administrative understanding is important, the doctrine thereby promotes accurate results, not only at the agency level, but also by allowing more informed judicial review. By limiting judicial interruption of agency proceedings, the doctrine can encourage expeditious decision making. Insofar as Congress has provided that an agency will decide a matter in the first instance, to apply the doctrine normally furthers specific Congressional intent. And, as a general matter, the doctrine promotes a sensible division of tasks between the agency and the court: litigants are discouraged from weakening the position of the agency by flouting its processes, while court resources are reserved for dealing primarily with those matters which could not be resolved administratively. Thus, the doctrine serves the interests of accuracy, efficiency, agency autonomy and judicial economy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a plaintiff attacks the lawfulness-of • an important ‘systemwide’ agency policy (say, a constitutional challenge to a policy disqualifying a large class of potential Social Security recipients),.the Supreme Court has held that the agency must waive its exhaustion requirements. In that sort of case exhaustion serves little purpose; the agency’s policy is well-established and unlikely to change; agency expertise is not particularly likely to help the court; and, at the same time, to insist upon exhaustion of agency procedures might -well physically harm a plaintiff needing benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he definition of adequate medical care cannot be boiled down to a precise mathematical formula”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lavapies 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.