Delrosa v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
922 F.2d 480 · 1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Cunningham v. Apfel (2000), Ghant v. Bowen (1991)
9 federal appellate · 7 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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Polaski v. Heckler · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw · Brown v. Schweitzer
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. the claimant’s daily activities; 2. the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; 3. precipitating and aggravating factors; 4. dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and 5. functional restrictions.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“On review, it is [a court’s] duty to determine whether substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the Secretary’s decision. 42 U.S.C. @ 405(g) (1988); Jeffery v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 849 F.2d 1129, 1132 (8th Cir.1988). As we have repeatedly noted, this standard of review involves more than a mere search for evidence supporting the Secretary’s findings. See, e.g., McMillian v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 215, 220 (8th Cir.1983). [A court] must examine all of the evidence on the record, Brand v. Secretary of Dep’t of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 623 F.2d 523, 527 (8th Cir.1980), and take into account whatever fairly detracts from its weight. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 , 71 S.Ct. 456, 465 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951); Tome v. Schweiker, 724 F.2d 711, 713 (8th Cir.1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peterman v. Chater“An ALJ, however, may not disregard a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain solely because of a lack of objective evidence. To the contrary, the ALJ may discredit subjective complaints of pain only if they are inconsistent with the evidence on the record as a whole. Furthermore, where an ALJ rejects a claimant’s testimony regarding pain, he must make an express credibility determination detailing his reasons for discrediting the testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. Shalala
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.