Thomas v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
666 F.2d 999 · 1982
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently May 2005 · most notably McCoy v. Schweiker (1982), Jones v. Heckler (1985)
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 413 (§ 213 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Mathews v. De Castro · Gibbons v. United States · Cowart v. Schweiker · Ferguson 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“use of the Guidelines is inappropriate where their evidentiary underpinnings do not coincide exactly with the evidence of disability appearing on the record”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]achine trades and bench work by their nature often involve exposure to dust, fumes, and other suspended particulates irritating or intolerable to persons afflicted with respiratory ailments.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The burden of proof shifts several times en route to a final determination of the issue of disability under the Act. Initially, it rests on the claimant who must show the existence of a disability by proving that she is unable to perform her previous work. * * * Her success shifts the burden of proof to the Secretary, who must convince the fact finder that there is other substantial gainful employment in the economy which the claimant can perform. If the Secretary does so, the ball is back in the claimant’s court: she must show her inability to perform those jobs. Thomas v. Schweiker, 666 F.2d 999 , 1002 n. 3 (5th Cir.1982);”
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.