James L. Burton and Sandra Daniels appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to compel reinstatement of Social Security benefits or, in the alternative, to expedite review of their Social Security claims. We dismiss this appeal because the issues before the Court are now moot.

Burton and Daniels are two of many claimants whose disability benefits were terminated in 1982 and 1983 by the Social Security Administration without a showing of medical improvement. In November of 1983, they filed independent actions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas seeking judicial review of their terminations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While their cases were pending, Congress enacted the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of

1984, Pub.L. No. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794 (1984) (hereinafter “the Act”) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.). Section 2 of the Act established a “medical improvement” standard for evaluating claims of continuing entitlement to disability benefits. Additionally, the Act required that “actions relating to medical improvements” which were pending in federal courts when Congress enacted the Act “shall” be remanded to the Secretary. See section 2(d)(3). Pursuant to the Act, this Court in a class action suit ordered that claimants whose benefits were terminated without a showing of medical improvement and who were members of the class would have their cases remanded to the Secretary to review for evidence of medical improvements. Po-laski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, modified, 751 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1984). As a result of the Act and Polaski, nearly 42,000 individual cases nationwide (approximately 2,400 of which were within the Eighth Circuit) were remanded to the Secretary for review pursuant to the Act and accompanying regulations.1

On November 14, 1984, the district court remanded Burton’s and Daniels' cases to the Secretary for further action consistent with the Act and Polaski. Approximately eighteen months later, because they had not received decisions on their cases, Burton and Daniels filed motions in district court requesting immediate reinstatement of their benefits or, in the alternative, the commencement by the Secretary, within ten days of the requested order, of further administrative proceedings. The district court, adopting the federal magistrate’s recommendation in toto, denied Burton’s and Daniels’ motions. It found that the reinstatement of benefits issue was still before the Secretary, and thus the court would not intervene. Additionally, the court declined to order expedited review, reasoning that such an order would be an intrusion upon the Social Security administrative process.2 The court relied on Heck*1241ler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104, 119, 104 S.Ct. 2249, 2257, 81 L.Ed.2d 88 (1984). In that decision, the Supreme Court held that Congress, in enacting the Social Security Act, had repeatedly rejected the “imposition of mandatory deadlines on agency adjudication of disputed disability claims.”

Burton and Daniels appealed to this Court, arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act granted them a right to a decision without unreasonable delay separate and apart from the rights addressed in the Heckler v. Day decision. The Secretary filed an untimely motion to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction and mootness. This Court denied the Secretary’s untimely motion, and heard oral arguments on these issues as well as the merits of the case.

It is a basic principle of law that there must be a live case or controversy at every stage of litigation. Carson v. Pierce, 719

F.2d 931, 933 (8th Cir. 1983). By the time of oral arguments, both Daniels’ and Burton’s benefits had been reinstated.3 Thus, there appears to be no live controversy.4 Burton and Daniels argue, however, that the issues in this case are capable of repetition yet evading review and thus the case is not moot. They claim they will be reviewed again by the Social Security Administration sometime within the next three years and, as history has shown, there will be yet another long delay in their review which they will have to challenge in court; and they will once more be faced with the Heckler v. Day decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 421(i) (Supp. 1986). The Secretary argues that while Burton and Daniels may be reviewed again pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 421(i), they will not be subject to a long delay in review because of the Act or Pola-ski.5 Additionally, the Secretary points to the existence of a “critical case”6 policy, *1242pursuant to which a claimant can request expedited review based on a hardship created by the delay in review. Finally, counsel for the Secretary in his statements at oral arguments has given this Court the assurance that September 30, 1987, is the target date for having review completed of all Eighth Circuit cases referred pursuant to Polaski and the Act.

We hold for the reasons stated by the Secretary that these cases are moot and accordingly dismiss this appeal.7