182 F. Supp. 2d 824 - Flaherty v. Halter’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Bowen v. Yuckert · Polaski v. Heckler · Wayne R. Hartranft v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner Social Security Administration · Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The ALJ’s limitation for the Plaintiff, with respect to an appropriate reasoning level, was that she could perform work which involved simple, routine, repetí tive, concrete, tangible tasks. Therefore, the DOT’s level two reasoning requirement did not conflict with the ALJ’s prescribed limitation. Although the DOT definition does state that the job requires' the understanding to carryout detailed instructions, it specifically caveats that the instructions would be üninvolved — that is, not a high level of reasoning.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meissl v. Barnhart
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.