Roberts v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
222 F.3d 466 · 2000
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 11 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1381A (§ 1602 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Bowen v. Yuckert · Sims v. Apfel · Borden v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Woolf v. Shalala · Prosch v. Apfel
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“bears the primary responsibility for assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity based on all relevant evidence,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Testimony from a vocational expert is substantial evidence only when the testimony is based on a correctly phrased hypothetical question that captures the concrete consequences of a claimant’s deficiencies.” Taylor v. Chater, 118 F.3d 1274, 1278 (8th Cir.1997). Although “questions posed to vocational experts should precisely set out the claimant’s particular physical and mental impairments, ... a proper hypothetical question is sufficient if it sets forth the impairments which are accepted as true by the ALJ.” House v. Shalala, 34 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir.1994) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wiekamp v. Apfel
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.