Brenem v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.2d 688 · 1980
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Cowart v. Schweiker (1981), Wiggins v. Schweiker (1982)
18 federal appellate ·
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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on DePaepe v. Richardson · Johnson v. Harris · Dodsworth v. Celebrezze · Broussard v. Gardner
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is certain that mental and psychological defects can combine with physical impairments to create total disability to perform gainful employment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e held that unless there was vocational expert testimony concerning the availability of jobs for a person with the claimant's educational level, work skills and experience and physical limitations, the decision of the ALJ, based significantly on the expert testimony, would be unsupported by substantial evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although there is no per se rule that a vocational expert be called to testify ... the ALJ must articulate specific jobs that the claimant is able to perform, and this finding must be supported by substantial evidence, not 'mere intuition or conjecture by the administrative law judge.' "). 7 In Brenem, supra, we observed that it is not proper for us "to assume that because the vocational expert was aware of [a claimant's] psychological problems, that he took them into consideration in answering hypothetical questions which referred only to physical impairments. Or at least, we have no basis for assuming that had these factors been included in the hypothetical questions his answer would have been the same.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pendley v. Heckler
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.