Thomas v. Berryhill’s Empirical Analysis
881 F.3d 672 · 2018
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
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 Hacker v. Barnhart · Ellis v. Barnhart · Hankins v. Finnel · Jones v. Astrue · Porch v. Chater
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1 Dictionary of Occupational Titles 381.687-018, at 282. Thus, according to the Dictionary, the job of hospital or industrial cleaner may require a reasoning ability greater than Stanton's. An apparent conflict remains between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary. The ALJ did not adequately address this apparent conflict. The ALJ asked the vocational expert whether his testimony was consistent with the Dictionary, but an ALJ must”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Commissioner has ruled that an ALJ may not rely on a vocational expert's testimony about the requirements of a job if an 'apparent unresolved conflict' exists between that testimony and the job's description in the [DOT].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“elicit from the expert an opinion whether there is a 'reasonable explanation' for the conflict and determine whether the expert's testimony warranted reliance despite the conflicting information in the [Dictionary].”
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.