89 F. Supp. 2d 1066 - Scott v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
August 2000
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Joseph v. United States · Jusino v. Brown · Polaski v. Heckler · McCoy 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The Commissioner] determines: (1) whether the claimant is presently engaged in a "substantial gainful activity’’; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment — one that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals a presumptively disabling impairment listed in the regulations (if so, the claimant is disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience); (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant cannot perform the past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there are other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Kelley v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583, 587-88 (8th Cir.1998).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“As a final point on this portion of the Commissioner’s burden, the requirement that the Commissioner prove the claimant’s residual functional capacity by medical evidence does not mean that the Commissioner must produce additional evidence not aleady within the record. Anderson, 51 F.3d at 779 . Rather, the question is whether medical evidence already in the record provides a sufficient basis for a decision in favor of the Commissioner. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge],”
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.