Ellis v. Schweicker’s Empirical Analysis
739 F.2d 245 · 1984
Citation profile
19 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Carl E. Puckett v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1988), Barrett v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1987)
19 federal appellate ·
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 · Kirk v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Allen v. Califano · Hephner v. Mathews · LeMaster v. Weinberger
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to the Secretary to demonstrate that there exist[s] other substantial activity which [the plaintiff] could perform.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2012; 2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.); 3. Since the alleged onset date of disability, June 2, 2007, the claimant has had the following severe impairments: muscle weakness of the upper and lower extremities, with left-sided pain; headaches; neuro-pathy with arthritis, possibly secondary to gastric bypass; and depression ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (c) and 416.920(c)); 4. Since the alleged onset date of disability, June 2, 2007, the claimant has not had an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926); 5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that, prior to January 19, 2011, the date the claimant became disabled, the claimant had the residual functional capacity [ (“RFC”) ] [3] to perform sedentary work as defined by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567 (a) and 416.967(a) except that she could never crouch or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and she could occasionally climb stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, or crawl. She was unable to perform work on uneven surfaces or perform repetitive use of foot controls on the left, and she needed to avoid exposure to hazards. She w”
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.