Kendrick v. Shalala’s Empirical Analysis
998 F.2d 455 · 1993
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Luna v. Shalala (1994), Scheck v. Barnhart (2004)
6 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Sullivan v. Finkelstein · Thompson v. Sullivan · Smith v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Cannon 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“one may always obtain another medical examination, seek the views of one more consultant, wait six months to see whether the claimant's condition changes, and so on.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“How much is enough is a subject on which reasonable persons can differ. Administrative law judges, members of the Appeals Council, and three tiers of federal judicial officers (magistrate judges, district judges, and circuit judges) bring different perspectives to the inquiry. Sequential review, with each tier able to reverse the prior one, means that to be safe the ALJ must develop the record as fully as the most demanding reviewer prefers. Because these reviewers are selected at random from a large pool, to be really safe the ALJ must please the most demanding federal judge in the jurisdiction. Yet this portends extended hearings and corresponding delay for the many claimants waiting for an ALJ to reach their case in a long queue.... Concern for the need to get on with today’s cases today and reach tomorrow’s cases tomorrow, rather than next month, suggests that the federal judiciary accept reasonable assessments by administrative officials about how much evidence is enough. Judicial review of administrative decisions is deferential. A decision supported by substantial evidence must be enforced. When conducting trials in their own courtrooms, judges may indulge a preference for “more” — although most do not, recognizing that cumulative evidence rarely repays the costs of gathering and presenting it. When reviewing proceedings conducted by others, district judges must respect the authority of administrative officials to decide how much is enough.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Safranski v. Shalala
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.