Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 810 F.2d 786 - Bradshaw v. Heckler

Bradshaw v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

810 F.2d 786 · 1987

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
March 2011
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Felisky v. Bowen (1994), Kirby v. Sullivan (1991)

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2001987199020002010decided

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

Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · McCoy v. Schweiker · Tucker v. Heckler · Jelinek v. Heckler · Lanning 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Instead, he [the ALJ] stated that he took the limitations imposed by Bradshaw’s pain into account in formulating Bradshaw’s residual functional capacity. However, residual functional capacity is a medical factor which is defined wholly in terms of the claimant’s physical ability to perform certain exertional tasks. See McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1148 (8th Cir.l982)(en banc). The appropriate evaluation is for the ALJ to determine the claimant’s residual functional capacity apart from the nonexertional limitations. After making findings as to the claimant’s age, education, and previous work experience, see id. at 1142 , the ALJ must present them as well as any findings he makes pertaining to allegations of pain to a vocational expert in the form of a hypothetical question. The question must state with precision the physical and mental impairments of the claimant. Ulrick v. Heckler, 780 F.2d 1381, 1382 (8th Cir.1985). From the expert’s testimony, the ALJ can determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that claimant is capable of performing thus satisfying the second prong of the Secretary’s burden of proof.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Once the claimant proved that his hip impairment was severe enough to prevent him from continuing his work as a custodian, the burden of proving that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Act shifted to the Secretary. The ALJ failed to properly allocate this burden here. We have held consistently that where the secretary fails to acknowledge the burden of proof one way or another, it must be assumed that the burden improperly remained on the claimant____ Such cases require reversal and a remand except in those rare instances where the outcome would be clear regardless of who shoulders the burden of proof.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “demonstrate that there are jobs available in the national economy that can realistically be performed by someone with the claimant's qualifications and capabilities.”
    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.