← 312 F. Supp. 2d 415 - Johnson v. Barnhart

312 F. Supp. 2d 415 - Johnson v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

cited by 5 later decisions

December 2018

most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (§ 1631 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Schaal v. Apfel · Perez v. Chater · Pratts v. Chater

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

“First, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. Where the claimant is not, the Commissioner next considers whether the claimant has a "severe impairment” that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment that is listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1. If the claimant has a listed impairment, the Commissioner will consider the claimant disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the Commissioner presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a listed impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, she has the residual functional capacity to perform her past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform her past work, the burden then shifts to the Commissioner to determine whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 402 F. Supp. 2d 429 - La Patra v. Barnhart
“[t]o the extent that evidence in the record supports plaintiff's contention that his reading ability is limited, the Court does not find that this undermines the ALJ's determination that plaintiff is also a high school graduate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Perez v. Barnhart
“IQ scores between 71 and 75 can provide a basis for a determination of equivalency to Listing 12.05(C).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Vay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

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.