Smith v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
735 F.2d 267 · 1984
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably Walker v. Bowen (1987), Pugh v. Bowen (1989)
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Heckler v. Campbell · Garfield v. Schweiker · Cummins v. Schweiker · Kail v. Heckler · Gordon 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The burden then shift[s] to the agency to show the claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform other work in the national economy.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Evans v. Bowen · Pearson v. Bowen“Since 1978 the Secretary has sought to meet this burden by relying in part on its Medical Vocational Guidelines. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2 (1983). The Appendix 2 Guidelines indicate in grid form whether a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy for individuals with various impairments of physical capacity, ages, education, and work experience. See Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 , 103 S.Ct. 1952, 1954-55 , 76 L.Ed.2d 66 (1983). Where an individual’s characteristics correspond to factors on the grid, the Guidelines direct a finding of disabled or not disabled. The Guideline rules do not encompass the characteristics of every conceivable claimant but rather describe what the agency has determined to be major vocational and functional patterns. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 (1983). The Guidelines only apply when the claimant’s vocational factors and residual functional capacity correspond with the criteria of a specific rule. Id.) Appendix 2, § 200.00(d). See Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 at 462 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. at 1955 n. 5 (“the rules will be applied only when they describe a claimant’s abilities and limitations accurately”). See also Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1498 (9th Cir.1984); Cannon, [v. Harris], 651 F.2d [513] at 517 [7th Cir, 1981].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“permitted to conclude that a non-exertional limitation, while present, has no significant impact on a claimant's capacity to perform the range of work the individual is otherwise exertionally capable of performing....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Caldarulo v. Bowen · Pugh 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.