Podedworny v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
745 F.2d 210 · 1984
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 66 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 268 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Plummer v. Apfel (1999), John VARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee (1987)
77 federal appellate · 66 district · 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Cotter v. Harris · Gold v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare · Smith v. Califano · Dobrowolsky v. Califano
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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Testimony of vocational experts in disability determination proceedings typically includes, and often centers upon, one or more hypothetical questions posed by the ALJ to the vocational expert. The ALJ will normally ask the expert whether, given certain assumptions about the claimant’s physical capability, the claimant can perform certain types of jobs, and the extent to which such jobs exist in the national economy. While the ALJ may proffer a variety of assumptions to the expert, the vocational expert’s testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to perform alternative employment may only be considered for purposes of determining disability if the question accurately portrays the claimant’s individual physical and mental impairments.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n award of benefits is appropriate when substantial evidence on the record as a whole indicates that the claimant is disabled, and the weight of the evidence indicates that a remand would only delay the receipt of benefits while serving no useful purpose.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[RFC,] ... age, education, and work experience[.]”
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.