Zavalin v. Colvin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Level 1: Apply commonsense understanding to carry out simple one- or two-step instructions. Deal with standardized situations with occasional or no variables in or from these situations encountered on the job. Level 2: Apply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions. Deal with problems involving a few concrete variables in or from standardized situations.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rounds v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · Rounds v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

2. “[T]here is an apparent conflict between the residual functional capacity to perform simple, repetitive tasks, and the demands of Level 3 Reasoning.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shaibi v. Berryhill · Cindy F. v. Berryhill

3. “fully develop the record” as to whether there is consistency between VE occupational evidence and the DOT); Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 , 846 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The ALJ’s failure to resolve an apparent inconsistency may leave us with a gap in the record that precludes us from determining whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.”); Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 , 1153 (9th Cir. 2007) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lamear v. Berryhill