Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 919 F.2d 901 - Moore v. Sullivan

Moore v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

919 F.2d 901 · 1990

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
September 2016
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Greenspan v. Shalala (1994), Mason v. Shalala (1993)

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

220199020002010decided

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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Hames v. Heckler · Villa v. Sullivan · Hollis v. Bowen · Harrell v. Bowen · Scott 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Generally, we give more weight to the opinions form a [claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record, we will give it controlling weight.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “ordinarily the opinions, diagnoses, and medical evidence of a treating physician who is familiar with the claimant's injuries, treatments, and responses should be accorded considerable weight in determining disability.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is entitled to determine the credibility of medical experts as well as lay witnesses and weigh their opinions accordingly.”
    1 later decision 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.