Ghant v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
930 F.2d 633 · 1991
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Singh v. Apfel (2000), Lowe v. Apfel (2000)
21 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Polaski v. Heckler · Marvin A. Yawitz v. Caspar W. Weinberger
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he opinion of a treating physician is entitled to great weight 'unless it is unsupported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“We review the Secretary’s decision denying Ghant disability insurance benefits to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Arnick v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 174, 176 (8th Cir.1990). Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216 , 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). In reviewing the Secretary’s decision, we must consider evidence that both supports and detracts from the Secretary’s decision. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 , 71 S.Ct. 456, 464 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Clarke v. Bowen, 843 F.2d 271, 272 (8th Cir.1988).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] treating physician's opinion should not ordinarily be disregarded and is entitled to substantial weight.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.