Garfield v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
732 F.2d 605 · 1984
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Stephens v. Heckler (1985), Delgado v. Bowen (1986)
62 federal appellate · 1 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)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Cotter v. Harris · Bloodsworth v. Heckler · Aubeuf 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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he following steps are addressed in order. (1) Is the claimant presently unemployed (2) Is the claimant's impairment "severe”? (3) Does the impairment meet or exceed one of a list of specific impairments? (4) Does the impairment prevent the claimant from performing his/her past relevant work? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy? An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he AU must articulate at some minimal level his analysis of the evidence in cases where considerable evidence is presented to counter the agency’s position. * * * * * * We hold that all medical evidence that is credible, supported by clinical findings, and relevant to the question at hand should be considered and discussed by the AU. The decision should contain and should be based upon a fair and impartial presentation of the medical evidence submitted by the claimant or obtained from other sources.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
5 later decisions 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.