Masterson v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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

1. “1. An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled regardless of the medical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (b). 2. An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (c). 3. An individual who “meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1” of the regulations will be considered disabled without consideration of vocational factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d). 4. If an individual is capable of performing the work she has done in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (e). 5. If an individual’s impairment precludes performance of her past work, then other factors, including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if any work can be performed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (f).”

   21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. Barnhart · King v. Barnhart

2. “more than a mere scintilla and less than a preponderance.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mendoza v. Astrue · United States Cellular Corporation v. City of Wichita Falls Texas

3. “1. The claimant met the disability insured status requirements for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits set forth in Section 216(i) of the Social Security Act and is insured for benefits through the date of this decision. 2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. 3. The medical evidence establishes that claimant has mild congestive heart failure and hypertension, but that she does not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. 4. The claimant’s testimony was not fully credible regarding her limitation or consistent with the record considered as a whole. 5. The claimant has the following residual functional capacity to perform at the sedentary exertional level. The claimant can stand or walk up to a total of 2 hours in an 8-hour workday. The claimant can sit up to a total of 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. The claimant can lift and carry 5 to 10 pounds occasionally. 6. The claimant is not precluded from performing her past relevant work as a cab dispatcher and accounts payable clerk. 7. The claimant’s past relevant work as cab dispatcher and accounts payable clerk did not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by her residual functional capacity ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565 ). 8. The claimant’s medically determinable mild congestive heart failure, and hypertension do not prevent the claimant from pe”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 460 F. Supp. 2d 790 - Holiday v. Barnhart · 458 F. Supp. 2d 314 - George v. Barnhart