Bowen v. Yuckert’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
662 federal appellate · 1,440 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,227 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Sullivan v. Zebley (1990), Barnhart Commissioner of Social Security v. Thomas (2003)
662 federal appellate · 1,440 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedValencia v. Heckler (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
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. § 421 (§ 221 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission · Bowen v. City of New York · United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
Cited together with Richardson v. Perales · Heckler v. Campbell · Sullivan v. Zebley · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 4,227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The ALJ must first ascertain whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. A claimant who is working is not disabled regardless of the medical findings. 2. The ALJ must then determine whether the claimed impairment is “severe.” A “severe impairment” must significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. 3. The ALJ must then determine if the impairment meets or equals in severity certain impairments described in Appendix 1 of the regulations. 4. If the claimant’s impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant can perform his past work despite any limitations. 5. If the claimant does not have the residual functional capacity to perform her past work, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant can perform any other gainful and substantial work in the economy. This determination is made on the basis of the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity.”
357 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment ... which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“those claimants whose medical impairments are so slight that it is unlikely they would be found to be disabled even if their age, education, and experience were taken into account.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.