Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 803 F.2d 24 - Raymond R. DA ROSA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee

Raymond R. DA ROSA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee’s Empirical Analysis

803 F.2d 24 · 1986

Citation profile

161
cited by 161 later decisions
April 2024
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 140 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 161 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Williams v. Bowen (1988), Nguyen v. Chater (1999)

13 federal appellate · 140 district ·

60019861990200020102020decided

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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on 14 soc.sec.rep.ser. 301, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 16,883 Ernest S. Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · Gray v. Heckler · Gagnon v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Sherwin v. Secretary of Health and 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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[he] must make specific findings as to the relevant evidence he considered in determining to disbelieve the appellant.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[p]ain may be a nonexertional factor to be considered in combination with exertional limitations, even though it may also serve as a separate and independent ground for disability.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In reaching his decision, the AU apparently discounted [the claimant’s] testimony concerning his pain and physical limitations because the extent of pain alleged was not corroborated by objective medical evidence.”
    1 later decision 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.