Jozefowicz v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
811 F.2d 1352 · 1987
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Casias v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (1991), Thompson v. Sullivan (1993)
21 federal appellate · 12 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. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Murray v. Heckler · Byron v. Heckler · Turner 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Past relevant work is defined as work that (1) occurred within the past fifteen years (the so-called recency requirement), (2) was of sufficient duration to enable the worker to learn to do the job (the so-called duration requirement), and (3) was substantial gainful employment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ALJ, in determining that the claimant retained the residual functional capacity for sedentary work, apparently accepted the judgments of the treating physicians that the claimant could not do work that involved prolonged walking or standing, while simultaneously rejecting their judgments that she also could not do work that involved prolonged sitting. No reason was given for accepting part of their findings and rejecting the other part.... 42”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kemp v. Bowen
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.