99 F. Supp. 2d 130 - Aguiar v. Apfel’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Nguyen v. Chater · 14 soc.sec.rep.ser. 301, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 16,883 Ernest S. Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · Carroll v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain; (2) Precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., movement, activity, environmental conditions); (3) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any pain medication; (4) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; (5) Functional restrictions; and (6) The claimant’s daily activities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lovely v. SSA
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.