Cunningham v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “`well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 708 F. Supp. 2d 941 - Rosa v. Astrue · 669 F. Supp. 2d 991 - GRBA-CRAGHEAD v. Astrue

2. “The regulations provide that the Appeals Council must evaluate the entire record, including any new and material evidence that relates to the period before the date of the ALJ’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b). The newly submitted evidence thus becomes part of the “administrative record,” even though the evidence was not originally included in the ALJ’s record. See Nelson v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 363, 366 (8th Cir.1992). If the Appeals' Council finds that the ALJ’s actions, findings, or conclusions are contrary to the weight of the evidence, including the new evidence, it will review the case. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970 (b). [Where] the Appeals Council denied review, finding that the new evidence was either not material or did not detract from the ALJ’s conclusion ... we do not evaluate the Appeals Council’s decision to deny review, but rather we determine whether the record as a whole, including the new evidence, supports the ALJ’s determination. See Nelson, 966 F.2d at 366 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wiekamp v. Apfel

3. “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but is enough so that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the ALJ’s conclusion. See Cox v. Apfel, 160 F.3d 1203, 1206-07 (8th Cir.1998). In determining whether existing evidence is substantial, we consider “evidence that, detracts from the Commissioner’s decision as well as evidence that supports it.” Warburton v. Apfel, 188 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir.1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wiekamp v. Apfel