Tom v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 1250 · 1985
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Clifford v. Apfel (2000), John VARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee (1987)
44 federal appellate · 7 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 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 McKart v. United States · Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Aragon · Carducci v. Regan · McCoy v. Schweiker · Podedworny v. Harris
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If you are close to retirement age (60-64) and have a severe impairment, we will not consider you able to adjust to sedentary or light work unless you have skills which are highly marketable.” (Emphasis Added)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the extent to which your age affects your ability to adapt to a new work situation and to do work in competition with others.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The language is unmistakably clear. Absent a finding that a claimant who is close to retirement age has acquired skills which are also 'highly marketable,' the regulations do not permit a finding of transferability.”
2 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.