Papesh v. Colvin’s Empirical Analysis
786 F.3d 1126 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Wagner v. Astrue · Hacker v. Barnhart · Baldwin v. Barnhart · Wildman v. Astrue · Pate-Fires v. Astrue
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“about the nature and severity of impairments; 3) the opinion must be well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, i.e., there must be some reasonable support for the opinion; and, 4) the opinion must also be consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. The ruling states that when all of the factors are satisfied,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Not inconsistent ... is a term used to indicate that a well-supported treating source medical opinion need not be supported directly by all of the other evidence (i.e., it does not have to be consistent with all the other evidence) as long as there is no other substantial evidence in the case record that contradicts or conflicts with the opinion."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]pinions of non-treating practitioners who have attempted to evaluate the claimant without examination do not normally constitute substantial evidence on the record as a whole.”
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.