Budds v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The continuation sheets are written in legal, rather than medical, language. Indeed, if the unidentified doctors (their respective signatures are illegible) did, in fact, write the continuation sheets, they would have done so in apparent violation of 20 C. F.R. § 404.1526 which explicitly states that “the function of deciding whether or not an individual is under a disability is the responsibility of the Secretary.” We are also concerned about the inaccurate and erroneous statements contained on the two continuation sheets, regardless of who may have written them, because such administrative work indicates a lack of concern that the rights of claimants be fairly determined on the basis of the actual factual circumstances present-ted. [ 313 F.Supp. at 1051 ].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Richardson

2. “In this connection, it is noted that the medical evidence of record includes a medical judgment by a physi cían designated by the Secretary that the claimant’s impairments are not medically the equivalent of the impairments listed in said Appendix [Exhibit 10] 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Richardson