Reed v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis
399 F.3d 917 · 2005
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Goff v. Barnhart (2005), Halverson v. Astrue (2010)
23 federal appellate · 15 district ·
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 Polaski v. Heckler · McCoy v. Schweiker · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Prosch v. Apfel · Thomas v. Sullivan
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether ■ the claimant is presently engaged in a “substantial gainful activity”; (-2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment — one that.significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the - claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform ... 'past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove there are other jobs in the national economy the claimant can perform.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An ALJ may 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.”
4 later decisions 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.