Herbert v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
783 F.2d 128 · 1986
Citation profile
45
cited by 45 later decisions
April 1998
most recently cited
23 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Polaski v. Heckler · Polaski v. Heckler · Jelinek v. Heckler · Smith v. Heckler
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“demonstrate that [he] evaluated all the evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“when alleged symptom-related limitations are clearly out of proportion to physical findings ... the possibility of a severe mental impairment should be investigated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The absence of an objective medical basis which supports the degree of severity of subjective complaints alleged is just one factor to be considered in evaluating the credibility of the testimony and complaints. The adjudicator must give full consideration to all of the evidence presented relating to subjective complaints, including the claimant’s prior work record, and observations by third parties in treating and examining physicians relating to such matters as: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency and intensity of pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and (5) functional restrictions. The adjudicator is not free to accept or reject claimant’s subjective complaints solely on the basis of personal observations. Subjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.