Fast v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.3d 468 · 2005
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2022
3 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co. · Zurawski v. Halter · Swenson v. Sullivan · Luna v. Shalala
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Smith met the insured status requirements of the SSA through December 31, 2013 (R. 16). 2. Smith has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of December 23, 2008 (id.). 3. Smith has had “severe impairments” since the alleged onset date, including pancreatitis, alcoholic hepatitis, depression and alcohol abuse that was in recent remission (id.). 4. Since December 23, 2008 Smith has not had an impairment or combination of impairments that meets the listed impairments (id.). 5. Since December 23, 2008 Smith has had the RFC to perform medium work as defined in Reg. §§ 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) (R. 18). 6. Smith has moderate limitations in concentration and persistence (id.). 7. Smith’s limitations require that she receive reminders from supervisors regarding her tasks twice per workday (id.). 8. Smith’s limitations require that she is allowed one five-minute break per hour during the workday (id.). 9. Smith is limited to performing work that involves one or two-step tasks (id.). 10. Since December 23, 2008 Smith has been unable to perform any past relevant work (R. 25). 11. Considering Smith’s age, education, work experience and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that she can perform (id.). 12. Smith was not disabled at any time from December 23, 2008 through the date of the decision (R. 27).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the common-sense rule that where the grids do not address a particular problem, the ALJ is entitled to rely on the . . . testimony of a [vocational expert].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haynes v. Barnhart“ability to meet the strength demands of jobs (sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling)[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haynes v. Barnhart
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.