Wilson v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.2d 513 · 1984
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Moore v. Barnhart (2005), MaCgregor v. Bowen (1986)
11 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
Relies on Bloodsworth v. Heckler · Reeves v. Heckler · Oldham v. Schweiker · Gaultney v. Weinberger · Broz 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this approach, an ALJ who is not a medical expert will subjectively arrive at an index of traits which he expects the claimant to manifest at the hearing. If the claimant falls short of the index, the claim is denied. As the court observed in [Tyler v. Weinberger, 409 F.Supp. 776 (E.D.Va.1976) ], this approach will not only result in unreliable conclusions when observing claimants with honest intentions, but may encourage claimants to manufacture convincing observable manifestations of pain, or, worse yet, discourage them from exercising the right to appear before an Administrative Law Judge for fear that they may not appear to the unexpert eye to be as bad as they feel. 409 F.Supp. at 789 . Freeman v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 727, 731 (11th Cir.1982).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“should not be considered in a vacuum, and instead, the doctors' earlier reports should be considered as the bases for their statements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johns v. Bowen
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.