Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 F.3d 1010 - Prosch v. Apfel

Prosch v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis

201 F.3d 1010 · 2000

Citation profile

197
cited by 197 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 24 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 197 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Newton v. Apfel (2000), Goff v. Barnhart (2005)

70 federal appellate · 24 district ·

1360200020102020decided

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. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Bowen v. Yuckert · Cox v. Apfel · Johnson v. Chater

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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.'”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion.”
    9 later decisions 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.