Bledsoe v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An ALJ is required to consider impairments a claimant says he has, or about which the ALJ receives evidence. Although Skarbek did not specifically claim obesity as an impairment (either in his disability application or at his hearing), the references to his weight in his medical records were likely sufficient to alert the ALJ to the impairment. Despite this, any remand for explicit consideration of Skarbek’s obesity would not affect the outcome of this case. Notably, Skarbek does not specify how his obesity further impaired his ability to work, but speculates merely that his weight made it more difficult to stand and walk. Additionally, the ALJ adopted the limitations suggested by the specialists and reviewing doctors, who were aware of Skarbek’s obesity. Thus, although the ALJ did not explicitly consider Skarbek’s obesity, it was factored indirectly into the ALJ’s decision as part of the doctors’ opinions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 475 F. Supp. 2d 527 - Stemple v. Astrue

2. “Social Security Ruling 02-01p does not mandate a particular mode of analysis. It only states that obesity, in combination with other impairments, “may” increase the severity of the other limitations. It is a mischaraeterization to suggest that Social Security Ruling 02-Olp offers any particular procedural mode of analysis for obese disability claimants.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 639 F. Supp. 2d 836 - Smith v. Astrue

3. “ALJ described evidence pertaining to all impairments, both severe and non-severe, for five pages earlier in his opinion and made factual findings,” that limited Step Three explanation was sufficient). But to the extent that the Commissioner would assert that the ALJ’s analysis regarding functional equivalence suffices for the required “meets” and”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 861 F. Supp. 2d 846 - M.G. v. Commissioner of Social Security