Zalewski v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.2d 160 · 1985
Citation profile
38 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Clifford v. Apfel (2000), Walker v. Bowen (1987)
38 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. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 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 · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Heckler v. Campbell · Cotter v. Harris · Garfield 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The 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) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? (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.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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“all medical evidence that is credible, supported by clinical findings and relevant to the question at hand....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bauzo v. Bowen · Anderson 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.