Shontos v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 18 district ·

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. “D. Determining Medical Equivalence in Particular Situations 1. MEDICAL EQUIVALENCE AND MENTAL RETARDATION Listing 12.05C, Mental Retardation and Autism, applies primarily to adults with significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and deficits in adaptive behavior that were initially manifested in the individual’s developmental period (before age 22). As with other mental impairment categories, the focus of Listing 12.05 is on the individual’s inability to perform and sustain critical mental activities of work. c. 12.05 C Listing 12.05 C is based on a combination of an IQ score with an additional and significant mental or physical impairment. The criteria for this paragraph are such that a medical equivalence determination would very rarely be required. However, slightly higher IQ’s (e.g., 70-75) in the presence of other physical or mental disorders that impose additional and significant work-related limitation of function may support an equivalence determination. It should be noted that generally the higher the IQ, the less likely medical equivalence in combination with another physical or mental impairment(s) can be found. POMS § DI 24515.056 (emphasis added).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phillips v. Colvin · Hesseltine v. Colvin

2. “At the hearing the claimant’s representative argued that the claimant met Listing 12.05C. The severity of the claimant’s mental impairment does not meet or medically equal the criteria of Listing 12.05.... To satisfy the “paragraph C” criteria, the claimant must have a valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hesseltine v. Colvin · 960 F. Supp. 2d 933 - Pierson v. Colvin

3. “[O]pinions of non-treating practitioners who have attempted to evaluate the claimant without examination do not normally constitute substantial evidence on the record as a whole.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lillard v. Berryhill · Gordon v. Astrue