Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Stieberger v. Heckler

615 F. Supp. 1315 (1985)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Stieberger v. Heckler

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

615 F. Supp. 1315 (1985)


Theresa Stieberger and the City of New York (plaintiffs) sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Margaret Heckler (defendant), challenging the Social Security Administration’s nonacquiescence policy whereby the administration either ignored or issued explicit nonacquiescence rulings directing administrative-law judges (ALJ) to disregard court of appeals’ decisions that the administration disagreed with. In nonacquiescence cases, the administration refused to adhere to decisions of federal courts, even those in the circuits in which ALJs sat, except in the specific cases in which the decisions were rendered. The Second Circuit had a well-established rule that claimants’ treating physicians’ opinions of whether claimants were disabled were binding on the administration unless contradicted by substantial evidence. The physicians’ opinions did not need to be supported by objective clinical and laboratory findings for the circuit’s rule to take effect. The secretary’s policy regarding treating physicians was to give their opinions greater weight than nontreating physicians; however, their opinions could be rejected if unsupported by clinical or laboratory findings even without contradictory evidence in the administrative record. Further, the secretary had adopted the Seventh Circuit presumption that treating physicians’ opinions were not entitled to controlling weight because treating physicians may go to great lengths to prove disability of claimants with whom they have developed close relationships. Stieberger and the city argued that the secretary’s policies combined with the volume of overturned denials due to the administration’s failure to apply the circuit’s precedent proved the administration’s nonacquiescence to the governing legal standard. The administration’s policy allegedly deprived benefits claimants of impartial ALJs and unlawfully discriminated against claimants who lacked the resources to seek judicial review.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Sand, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 619,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership