Kelley v. Callahan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 federal appellate · 19 district ·

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

1. “The opinion of a consulting physician who examines a claimant once or not at all does not generally constitute substantial evidence.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Comm'r · Jeffrey Walker v. Commissioner, Social Security

2. “(1) The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 1998. (2) The claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity front December 2005 through September 2006 and June-August as well as December 2008 ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (b), 404.1571 et seq., 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.). (3) However, there has been a continuous 12-month period(s) during which the claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity. The remaining findings address the period(s) the claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity. (4) The claimant has the following severe impairment: schizophrenia, paranoid with psychotic features ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (c) and 416.920(c)). (5) 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. §§ 404.1520 (d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926). (6) After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: The claimant is mentally limited to short, simple tasks and brief and superficial contact with others. (7) The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565 and 416.965). (8) The claimant was born on July 22, 1974 and was 21 years old, which is defin”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Devary v. Colvin · Loftis v. Colvin

3. “It is not evident why these few references to the record are inconsistent with Hamel’s testimony that, despite taking medication, he experiences constant back pain and intermittent numbness in his left leg that prevent him from working full-time. For example, the ALJ mentions “several notes in the file referring to the Claimant working on repairing a vehicle.” Hamel testified, however, that he maintains his cars “on a hobby level,” working on them only for about an hour and a half at a time. (Tr. 68.) The other note referenced by the ALJ (“Currently works part-time repairing juice machines.”) presumably is one made by the clinical social worker, Crandall, when Hamel started counseling sessions at the VA, on August 10, 1998. (Tr. 997.) This was before the alleged onset date of Hamel’s disability, and other evidence in the record shows that he quit performing such work oh August 15, 1998. (Tr. 226.) Hamel disputes that it took 3 hours to drive between Central City and Grand Island, which are located only 22 miles apart. He also observes that the trip to Texas took a week in a camper, and that the medical records reflect that he was “exhausted” following the 24-hour trip to Minot, North Dakota. (Tr. 382, 366.) Hamel testified that he is able to drive for about 2 hours at a time. (Tr. 76.) “When an ALJ rejects a claimant’s complaints of pain, he or she must make an express credibility determination detailing reasons for discrediting the testimony, must set forth the inconsistenci”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 620 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - Hamel v. Astrue · 109 F. Supp. 2d 1102 - Priest v. Apfel