Walker v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1381A (§ 1602 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Laffoon v. Califano · Hicks v. Califano · Wilson v. Califano
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The claimant met the eligibility requirements under the Act as of November 13, 1975, the date the claimant stated she became unable to work, and continued to meet the eligibility requirements up to March 31, 1981, but not thereafter. 2. The claimant suffers from diabetes mellitus, controlled with diet and Insulin; mild to moderate osteoarthritis; carpal tunnel syndrome of the right wrist; hypertension, well controlled with medication, and a mild depressive reaction. 3. The claimant’s testimony concerning severe, constant, and disabling pain is not credible nor is it supported by the medical evidence of record, although it is recognized that the claimant may have some pain of a non-disabling nature. 4. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform work-related functions except for work involving prolonged standing, pushing, pulling, crawling and climbing. 5. The claimant’s past relevant work as a supervisor for a vending machine concession did not require prolonged standing, pushing, pulling, bending, crawling, or climbing. 6. The claimant’s impairments do not prevent the performance of this past relevant work. 7. The claimant was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, as amended, at any time through the date of this decision. (tr. 16-17).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leslie v. Schweiker“We are in agreement with the Secretary that a vocational expert is not necessary when the factors of a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education and work experience coincide with the criteria of a rule under the new regulations and the rule directs a conclusion as to whether the individual is or is not disabled.”
1 later decision 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.