Johnson v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
864 F.2d 340 · 1988
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Brown v. Apfel (1999), Boyd v. Apfel (2001)
3 federal appellate · 4 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. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 1 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Hames v. Heckler · Fraga v. Bowen · Strickland v. Harris · Oldham v. Schweiker
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. If a person is engaged in substantial gainful activity, he will not be found disabled regardless of the medical findings. 2. A person who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled. 3. A person who meets the criteria in the list of impairments in Appendix 1 of the regulations will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors. 4. If a person can still perform his past work, he is not disabled. 5. If a person’s impairment prevents him from performing his past work, other factors including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if other work can be performed.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established, but “no substantial evidence” will be found only where there is a “conspicuous absence of credible choices” or “no contrary medical evidence.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * However, we may not reweigh the evidence in the record, nor try the issues de novo, nor substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary, even if the evidence preponderates against the Secretary’s decision ...”
6 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.