73 F. Supp. 2d 1325 - Williams v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382E (§ 1616 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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 · MaCgregor v. Bowen · Martin v. Sullivan · Walden v. Schweiker · Walker v. Bowen
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity [“SGA”] 4 since the last favorable decision (R. 36). 2. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals in severity one set forth in the Listing of Impairments (R.36). 3. The claimant has experienced medical improvement since the most recent favorable disability decision (R. 36). 4. The claimant’s medical improvement is related to her ability to work (R. 36). 5. The claimant has the following medically determinable severe impairments: Dysthymic Disorder 5 , chronic anxiety, exogenous obesity, status post sternotomy for stab wound to the chest — no sequela, and status post right carpal tunnel release (R. 36). 6. The claimant’s subjective allegations are not credible (R. 36). 7. The claimant’s retains the residual functional capacity to performed work within the limitations set forth in the Medical Source Opinion, dated October 11, 2000 (Exhibit B29), completed by Dr. Alan M. Babb, M.D. and in the Medical Source Opinion, dated October 30, 2000 (Exhibit B28), completed by Dr. Curry B. Hammack, Ph.D. In other words, the claimant can perform a range of light work (R. 36). 8. The claimant can return to past relevant work (R. 36). 9. The claimant is no longer disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (R. 36).”
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.