771 F. Supp. 1339 - Rivera v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 14387b Garcia v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1995), Calzada v. ASTURE (2010)
2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 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 · Thomas v. Arn · Cabrera-Martinez v. United States · Small v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Second Circuit has noted that ‘where application of the correct legal principles to the record could lead to only one conclusion, there is no need to require agency reconsideration. In such a case, a remand solely for the purpose of calculating benefits is appropriate. Stated differently, the payment of benefits may be ordered ‘when the record provides persuasive proof of disability and a remand for further eviden-tiary proceedings would serve no purpose.’ If, on the other hand, the record would permit a conclusion by the Secretary that the plaintiff is not disabled, the appropriate remedy is to remand for further proceedings rather than for the calculation of benefits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the [Commissioner] considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience .c.c.c. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`It is self-evident that a determination by the [ALJ] must contain a sufficient explanation of [his] reasoning to permit the reviewing court to judge the adequacy of [his] conclusions.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Calzada v. ASTURE
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.