Arnett v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.3d 586 · 2012
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Clifford v. Apfel · Zurawski v. Halter · Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Craft v. Astrue · Skarbek 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e agree with Arnett that the ALJ failed to formulate an RFC that is sufficiently specific as to how often she must be able to sit and stand.... An RFC must be specific about the required frequency of standing and sitting. SSR 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185 , at -7, 1996 SSR LEXIS 6, at -19 (July 2, 1996). Arnett’s RFC provides that she must be able to alternate between sitting and standing “throughout the work-day.” This does not specify a particular frequency, and does not require that Ar-nett be able to choose to sit or stand when she feels it is necessary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Colvin
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.