Willis v. Chater’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “CLARIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF DISABILITY BENEFITS TO DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS. Section 105(a)(5) of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 ... is amended— * * * by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: “(D) For purposes of this paragraph, an individual’s claim, with respect to benefits under title II of the Social Security Act based on disability, which has been denied in whole before the date of the enactment of this Act, may not be considered to be finally adjudicated before such date if, on or after such date— “(i) there is pending a request for either administrative or judicial review with respect to such claim, or “(ii) there is pending, with respect to such claim, a readjudication by the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to relief in a class action or implementation by the Commissioner of a court remand order.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Redd v. Chater · Porter v. Chater

2. “In interpreting the amendment’s clause regarding the effective date, the court considered the possibility that "on or after the date of enactment” actually modifies "disability,” rather than "who applies for, or whose claim is finally adjudicated,” due to the positioning of these phrases within the amendment’s text as well as the fact that the concept of the onset date is a critical element in making disability determinations. If this were the case, then only those claimants whose disability actually begins after March 29, 1996, would receive no benefits. The practical effect of this alternative interpretation would be to allow claimants who file for disability insurance benefits ("DIB”) after the date of enactment but allege onset before enactment to be eligible for a closed period of benefits.... The court rejected this alternative because a claimant for benefits after the date of enactment does so under a new law and should therefore not be entitled to any benefits arising from a disability which the law no longer recognizes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Teitelbaum v. Chater

3. “[A]nd, in the case of any individual ... whose claim has been finally adjudicated by the Commissioner with respect to, such benefits [based on disability] before [March 29, 1996], such amendments shall apply only with respect to such benefits [based on disability before March 29, 1996] for months beginning on or after January 1, 1997.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Torres v. Chater