Ellerman v. Flemming’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently February 1981 · most notably Celebrezze v. Bolas (1963), Jarvis v. Ribicoff (1963)
24 federal appellate · 7 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. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 416 (§ 216 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Goldman v. Folsom · Klimaszewski v. Flemming · 166 F. Supp. 44 - Dunn v. Folsom · Kohrs v. Flemming
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under the Social Security Act, unlike some other statutes, it is not the burden of the claimant to introduce evidence which negatives every imaginable job open to men with his impairment, and of his age, experience and education. It is quite enough if he offers evidence of what he has done, of his inability to do that kind of work any longer, and, of his lack of particular experience for any other type of job. If there are other kinds of work which are available and for which the claimant is suited, it is the defendant’s burden to adduce some evidence from which a finding can be made that he can do some type of work; actually, not apparently. Parfenuk v. Flemming, D.C.Mass.1960, 182 F.Supp. 532 . Here, the Referee has made no such finding, whatsoever, based on evidence.””
12 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * the act is concerned not with a standard man of ordinary and customary abilities, but with the particular person who may claim its benefits and the effect of the impairment upon that person, with whatever abilities or inabilities he has. Thus plaintiff's impairments would not prevent him from teaching courses in law, but the provisions of the act would be utterly futile if ‘any substantial gainful activity’ means activity utterly beyond the capacity of the particular person involved. ‘Any substantial gainful activity’ is such activity for which the particular claimant is reasonably qualified by education, training, or skill. Compare cases relating to ‘total disability’ under War Risk and National Service Life Insurance. * * * Thus, if a medically determinable physical impairment exists, the court should consider whether such impairment prevents the particular plaintiff from engaging in any substantial gainful activity for which he is qualified, and to that end may consider his education, training, and experience, as well as the nature and extent of the impairment itself.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“, as used in the Act, supra, is synonymous in the sense of belonging to the real nature of”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.