Schisler v. Sullivan
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
3 F.3d 563 (1993)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
Robert Schisler and Jonathan Aldrich separately represented classes of disability benefits claimants (plaintiffs) who sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Louis Sullivan (defendant), in United States district courts. The class members alleged that the secretary’s regulations modified circuit precedent by only giving treating physicians’ opinions controlling weight when they were supported by medically acceptable laboratory findings and diagnostic techniques and were not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. Second Circuit precedent gave the opinions controlling weight even when they were not supported by other evidence of record. Because the administration never acquiesced to the circuit rule before implementing the regulations, different rules had been applied when disabilities were determined by administrative adjudication versus following judicial review. The district courts decided, in each of the cases, that the regulations applied to administrative proceedings while circuit precedent still governed judicial review, leading to the courts’ affirmation of administrative rulings applying the new regulations while remanding those that were being considered upon judicial review for further proceedings consistent with circuit precedent. The classes were consolidated to settle the law, and a stay was granted pending appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Winter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 819,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.