Frank v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “... Watson required the ALJ to make a finding as to the claimant’s ability to maintain a job for a significant period of time, notwithstanding the exertional, as opposed to non-exertional (e.g., mental illness) nature of the claimant’s alleged disability. Watson requires a situation in which, by its nature, the claimant’s physical ailment waxes and wanes in its manifestation of disabling symptoms. For example, if Frank had alleged that her degenerative disc disease prevented her from maintaining employment because every number of weeks she lost movement in her legs, this would be relevant to the disability determination. At bottom, Watson holds that in order to support a finding of disability, the claimant’s intermittently recurring symptoms must be of sufficient frequency or severity to prevent the claimant from holding a job for a significant period of time. Ají ALJ may explore this factual predicate in connection with the claimant’s physical diagnosis as well as in the ability-to-work determination. Usually, the issue of whether the claimant can maintain employment for a significant period of time will be subsumed in the analysis regarding the claimant’s ability to obtain employment. Nevertheless, an occasion may arise, as in Watson , where the medical impairment, and the symptoms thereof, is of such a nature that separate consideration of whether the claimant is capable of maintaining employment is required. Frank did not establish the factual predicate required by Watson”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. King v. Barnhart · 337 F. Supp. 2d 905 - Hector v. Barnhart

2. “Subsection (d) is entitled “How we weigh medical opinions” and explicitly applies only to “medical opinions.” Subsection (e) of the regulation expressly explains that some opinions by physicians are not medical opinions, and as such have no “special significance” in the ALJ’s determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (e) & (e)(3). Among the opinions by treating doctors that have no special significance are determinations that an applicant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (e)(1). These determinations are legal conclusions that the regulation describes as “reserved to the Commissioner.” The factors set out at subsection (d) apply only to medical opinions, not opinions “reserved to the Commissioner.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Villalpando v. Astrue

3. “nothing in Watson suggests that the ALJ must make a specific finding regarding the claimant's ability to maintain employment in every case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perez v. Barnhart