Wroblewski v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.2d 908 · 1979
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 1991 · most notably Brown v. Bowen (1986), Western v. Harris (1981)
17 federal appellate · 3 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
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 · Celebrezze v. Bolas · Brinker v. Weinberger · Emil C. Timmerman v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W., Kenneth Marks v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W. · Stephens v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court has stated a three-fold requirement for the determination of disability under 42 U.S.C. § 423 (1976): (1) a medically determined physical or mental impairment which has or will last at least twelve months; (2) inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity; and (3) the inability must be by reason of the impairment. Stephens v. Secretary of HEW, supra, at 41; Johnson v. Califano, 572 F.2d 186 , 187 (8th Cir. 1978); Dressel v. Califano, 558 F.2d 504 , 506-07 (8th Cir. 1977); Timmerman v. Weinberger, 510 F.2d 439 , 442 (8th Cir. 1975). The claimant has the burden of establishing the existence of her disability, but that burden shifts to the Secretary upon a showing by claimant of an inability to perform her past occupation due to a medically determinable ailment. Stephens, supra at 41; Lewis v. Califano, 574 F.2d 452 , 455 (8th Cir. 1978); Timmerman, supra at 443 . Once such a showing has been made the Secretary must then demonstrate that the claimant can perform some other type of substantial gainful employment. Boyer v. Califano, 598 F.2d 1117 , 1118 (8th Cir. 1979); Brinker v. Weinberger, 522 F.2d 13 , 17 (8th Cir. 1975); Celebrezze v. Bolas, supra, 316 F.2d at 507 . [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Camp v. Schweiker“For the reviewing court, substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 , 91 S.Ct. 1420 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Stephens v. Secretary of HEW, 603 F.2d 36 at 41 (8th Cir., July 16, 1979). See also Celebreeze v. Bolas, 316 F.2d 498, 501 (8th Cir. 1963).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]nly when all claimed impairments are considered by the vocational expert within the scope of a propounded hypothetical question can he or she make a proper analysis as to the claimant’s ability to engage in ’ significant gainful activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Powell v. Schweiker
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.