559 F. Supp. 100 - Scruggs v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 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)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · LeMaster v. Weinberger · Ragan v. Finch · Lofton v. Schweiker
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... this inference in all cases may be unfair. For example, a less than severe hearing loss to an individual may prevent that individual from continuing in his present occupation requiring better hearing than the individual retains. In another example, an individual who has worked at heavy work may be restricted from continuing in heavy lifting by a less than severe muscular strain, or by some other nonsevere health problem.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Heckler“it is difficult to imagine what may have been left off the list.” 3 . ALJ Bowman found (R. 10) McCullough could”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,”
1 later decision 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.