472 F. Supp. 2d 39 - Conte v. McMahon’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 428 (§ 228 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Irlanda Ortiz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · 14 soc.sec.rep.ser. 301, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 16,883 Ernest S. Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · 15101b Manso-Pizarro v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the ALJ considers an array of factors to determine what weight to grant the opinion, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the degree to which the opinion can be supported by relevant evidence, and the consisten cy of the opinion with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2)-(6); 416.927(c)(2)-(6). Further, the regulations require adjudicators to explain the weight given to a treating source opinion and the reasons supporting that decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We must uphold the Secretary's findings if a reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole, could accept it as adeguate to support his conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. SSA“ruled that no grounds existed for reversal when the hearing officer omitted one factor, but adeguately attended to the other relevant factors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. SSA
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.