Krishnan v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 5 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Section 405(g), which governs judicial review of final SSA decisions authorizes only two types of remands: those pursuant to sentence four and those pursuant to sentence six. Under sentence four, a district court may remand for further proceedings in conjunction with “a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner.” 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). A sentence-six remand is entirely different. The district court does not affirm, modify, or reverse the [Commissioner’s] decision; it does not rule in any way as to the correctness of the administrative determination. Rather, the district court remands either because (1) the Commissioner requested a remand before filing his answer, or (2) there is new evidence which is material and there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holley v. Astrue · 597 F. Supp. 2d 691 - Brown v. Astrue

2. “Sentence four remands are distinct from sentence six remands in that `[s]entence four remands are appealable because they are part of a final judgment disposing of the action' while `[s]entence six remand orders are considered interlocutory and non-appealable, because the district court retains jurisdiction over the action pending further development and consideration by the ALJ.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marshall v. Commissioner