Oldham v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.3d 1254 · 2007
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Mays v. Colvin (2014), Newbold v. Colvin (2013)
5 federal appellate · 17 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 Winfrey v. Chater · Hackett v. Barnhart · White v. Barnhart · Lax v. Astrue · Grogan v. Barnhart
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“satisfie[d] the requirement that the ALJ’s decision be ‘sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.' ” Id. (quoting Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 ). In Oldham , on the record “in th[at] case,” id., we could be confident that the ALJ considered all of the regulatory factors, although the ALJ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rush v. Saul · Andersen v. Astrue“‘very little weight' to opinions from various treating physicians regarding her functional capacity,” because those physicians did not have the benefit of the powerful contrary record evidence that severely undercut Ms. Oldham’s disability assertions, but instead had placed significant reliance upon Ms. Oldham’s unreliable statements. Id. at 1258. Coupled with the ALJ’s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Andersen v. Astrue
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.