Matullo v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
926 F.2d 240 · 1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 74 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Zirnsak v. Colvin (2014), 537 F. Supp. 2d 644 - Gonzalez v. Astrue (2008)
2 federal appellate · 74 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. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Barrett v. United States · Baerga v. Richardson · Purter 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), an individual shall be considered to be disabled for purposes of this subchap-ter if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. (B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), an individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. (D) For purposes of this paragraph, a physical or mental impairment is an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 10, 2006, the application date (20 C.F.R. 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.). 2. The claimant has the following severe impairments: recurrent pyelonephritis of the left kidney, atrophy of the right kidney, depression, anxiety, inflammatory arthritis and seizures (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c)). 3. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926). 4. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform simple, unskilled, sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a) except that she could lift 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently, sit for 6 hours in an 8 hour period, stand or walk for 2 hours in an 8 hour period, occasionally balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling but never climbing a ladder, rope or scaffold, frequently pushing and pulling with the upper extremities, working overhead, handling, fingering and feeling, avoiding concentrated exposure to extreme cold and vibrations and all exposure to heights and hazardous machinery. 5. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 C.F.R. 416.965). 6. The claimant was born on August 12, 1973 and was 32 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the a”
4 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.