Olsen v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
703 F.2d 751 · 1983
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently December 2010
5 federal appellate · 6 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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · Cotter v. Harris · Smith v. Califano · Dobrowolsky v. Califano
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 16, 1991; b. The medical evidence establishes that the claimant has a lumbosacral strain, but that he does not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4; c. The claimant’s allegations of constant, severe pain are not credible and such pain either in itself or in conjunction with any other subjective complaints is not of such severity as to constitute the claimant disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, as amended; d. The claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform work-related activities except for work involving the ability to lift and carry more than fifty pounds at a time due to occasional low back discomfort; e. The claimant’s past relevant work as a janitor did not require the performance of the work related activities precluded above and most tractor trailer jobs do not either; f. • The claimant’s impairment does not prevent the claimant from performing past relevant work; and, g. The claimant was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time through the date of this decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our decisions make clear that determination vel non of substantial evidence is not merely a quantitative exercise. A single piece of evidence will not satisfy the substantiality test if the [agency] ignores, or fails to resolve, a conflict created by countervailing evidence. Nor is evidence substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence — particularly certain types of evidence (e.g., that offered by treating physicians).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Gorecki v. Massanari“lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Channel 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.