Craig v. Chater
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Courts continue to apply its substantial-evidence review standard. Newer Social Security regulations use a different method for weighing medical opinions in later claims. Several opinions append “superseded by statute on other grounds” or “superseded by statute, 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)” to a citation to Craig while applying its substantial-evidence standard. These are citation-history parentheticals, not holdings identifying a later law that displaced Craig. Craig itself cited § 416.927(d)(2). No adverse entry was warranted from those opinions.
99 later cases cite Craig v. Chater; 99 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Craig v. Chater?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 99 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Craig v. Chater and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace