107 F.3d -986 - Ingram v. Chater’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““First the [Commissioner] determines whether the claimant is presently engaged in a ‘substantial gainful activity.’ Second the [Commissioner] analyzes whether the claimant has a severe impairment — one that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. Third, the [Commissioner] determines whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment listed in the regulations; if so, the [Commissioner] finds that the claimant is disabled without considering the claimant’s age, education and work experience. Fourth, the [Commissioner] considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work to determine whether the claimant can still perform the work. If the claimant has the residual capacity to perform that work, the [Commissioner] finds that the claimant is not disabled. Finally, if the [Commissioner] determined that the claimant cannot perform the past work, the [Commissioner] determines whether any substantial gainful activity exists in the national economy which the claimant can perform.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grebenick v. Chater

2. “in her spine. Id. at 604 (internal quotations omitted). Our mandate issued in April 1997. 2 On remand, the ALJ issued a decision in February 1998 once again denying Ingram's claim that her obesity was a disabling condition. He found that Ingram had a history of pain and limitation of motion in her lower back but denied benefits under Listing 9.09 because Ingram had not shown”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ingram v. Barnhart

3. “`[h]istory of pain and limitation of motion in any weight-bearing joint or the lumbosacral spine (on physical examination) associated with findings on medically acceptable imaging techniques of arthritis in the affected joint or lumbosacral spine.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ingram v. Barnhart