Zabala v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.3d 402 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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 · Link v. Wabash Railroad · Schaal v. Apfel · Halloran 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because application of the treating physician rule would inevitably lead to the same conclusion by the ALJ and the Appeals Council, there is no need to require agency reconsideration.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[S]ignificantly diminish' ... mean[s] the additional loss of work capacity beyond a negligible one or, in other words, one that so narrows a claimant's possible range of work as to deprive him of a meaningful employment opportunity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ALJ considered [physician]'s 2001 report, and [physician]'s 2002 report, which the ALJ overlooked, was largely identical to it. Because the report that the ALJ overlooked was not significantly more favorable to Petitioner, we find no reasonable likelihood that her consideration of the same doctor's 2002 report would have changed the ALJ's determination that Petitioner was not disabled during the closed period.”
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.