220 F. Supp. 2d 512 - Schoofield v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 557 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management · Melkonyan v. Sullivan · Laws v. Celebrezze · Thomas v. Celebrezze · Cotter v. Harris
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the evidence in the administrative record clearly generates an issue as to a particular listing ... and the ALJ fails to properly identify the [Listing] considered ... and to explain clearly the medical evidence of record supporting the conclusion reached ... a remand can be expected to result, except in those circumstances where it is clear from the record which listing or listings ... were considered, and there is elsewhere in the ALJ’s opinion an equivalent discussion of the medical evidence relevant to the ... analysis which allows this Court readily to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s ... conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.