Young v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 951 · 1988
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably Byam v. Barnhart (2003), Canales v. Sullivan (1991)
18 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hayes v. Gardner · Shrader 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t offends fundamental fairness ... to bind a claimant to an adverse ruling who lacks both the mental competency and the legal assistance necessary to contest the initial determination.” Id. at 955 . The Court allowed the mentally impaired claimant to reopen a 4-year old claim previously denied by the Secretary and stated that its due process holding”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[we] acknowledged ... that the Secretary's decision not to reconsider a previously denied claim was not generally subject to judicial review unless that denial impaired a constitutional interest. We further recognized, however, that such an interest is implicated when a pro se claimant lacks the mental ability to pursue an appeal of an administrative denial. We concluded, therefore, that when a claimant for benefits has demonstrated that at the time of a previous application he lacked the capacity to assert his rights, the Secretary cannot automatically give res judicata effect to the previous finding of no disability without offending constitutional due process. Instead, we required that a supplemental hearing be held to determine whether the claimant did, in fact, lack competence at the earlier time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“despite the protestations on appeal that the medical evidence was reviewed simply to determine whether there was “good cause” to reopen appellant’s previous applications, a careful reading of the decision reveals an implicit analysis of the nature of Young’s disability in 1979 and 1980. Since the Secretary has attempted to support his decision in some part by weighing the full range of medical evidence, we are thus free to determine whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence.”
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.