202 F. Supp. 2d 577 - Barrientoz v. Massanari’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “1. Effective immediately, when a prior claim is pending at the AC [Appeals Council], we will send: subsequent disability claims to the DDS [Disability Determination Services] for development and adjudication regardless of whether they are filed under the same or a different title than the prior claims pending at the AC. * * * 2. The DDS will limit any favorable determination on the subsequent claim to the period beginning with the day after the date of the AU’s decision. If a subsequent claim results in a favorable determination, including a later onset or closed period of disability determination, the determination will be effectuated with an onset date no earlier than the day after the AU decision on the prior claim. After effectuation of the determination, the subsequent claim will be sent to the AC to determine if it contains new and material evidence relating to the period that was before the ALJ on the prior claim. 3. If the DDS denies the subsequent claim at the initial level, the claimant may appeal the determination to the reconsideration level, and the DDS will process the claim normally. 4. If the reconsideration determination is unfavorable, the claimant may appeal the determination to the hearing level. At that stage, the hearing office (HO) will defer action on the new request for hearing until the AC completes its action on the prior claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 285 F. Supp. 2d 728 - Reichard v. Barnhart

2. “absent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant’s treating specialist, an ALJ may reject the opinion of the treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 1527 (d)(2). Additionally, if the ALJ determines that the treating physician’s records are inconclusive or otherwise inadequate to receive controlling weight, absent other medical opinion evidence based on personal examination or treatment of the claimant, the ALJ must seek clarification or additional evidence from the treating physician in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512 (e).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 248 F. Supp. 2d 607 - Robinson v. Barnhart

3. “The purpose of SSA-EM-99147 is to expedite the consideration of prior claims once a subsequent award of benefits is granted and the claimant maintains the evidence on which it was based relates to the time period for his prior claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 285 F. Supp. 2d 728 - Reichard v. Barnhart