Penny v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
2 F.3d 953 · 1993
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Tackett v. Apfel (1999), Flaten v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1995)
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Joseph v. United States · Bunnell v. Sullivan · Gallant v. Heckler · Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Jones v. Heckler
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must establish that [she] is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“consider the record as a whole, weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Secretary's conclusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the case at bar, there is no medical evidence about how [plaintiffs] impairments affect [her] ability to function now. The ALJ relied on the opinions of non-treating, non-examining physicians who reviewed the reports of the treating physicians to form an opinion of [plaintiffs] RFC. In our opinion, this does not satisfy the ALJ’s duty to fully and fairly develop the record. The opinions of doctors who have not examined the [recipient] ordinarily do not constitute substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Likewise, the testimony of a vocational expert who responds to a hypothetical based on such evidence is not substantial evidence upon which to base a denial of benefits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.