Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 277 FSUPP 929 - Egan v. Gardner

Egan v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
July 1974
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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)

Relies on Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Northeast Airlines, Inc. · Underwood v. Ribicoff · Hobby v. Hodges · Mark v. Celebrezze · Leonard J. McMullen v. Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary, Health, Education and Welfare

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

  1. “There is an additional reason why the examiner’s decision must be reversed. The examiner stated in his opinion that “if claimant is as limited in her move ments as she claims and appears to be, there is no likelihood of her being able to engage in any substantial gainful activity. * * * ” He never resolved this credibility issue, however, due to his belief that “a claimant’s own statements of his or her symptoms of pain, discomfort and limitation of motion, unless supported by medical evidence, are not sufficient to establish a disability under the Social Security Act. * * * ” This is not a correct statement of the law. While there must be some medical evidence to support a claim of disability —and such evidence existed in this case [as in the instant case; see the opinion of Dr. George W. Geiss, TR pp. 176-178, Ex. 19, quoted at note 4 supra] — symptoms of pain, or inability to exert oneself, need not be objectively shown. * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.