Jones v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 4 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[G]iven the appropriateness of additional treatment, we cannot see how the speech impairment can fairly be characterized as “slight or minimal.” Nor can it be viewed as simply a peripheral effect of her low intelligence, since the problem has persisted from an early age, and specific treatment for the condition has been recommended. The problem is not merely one of cognition (I.Q.), but also of expression (for example, an inability to put words in the proper order). Communications difficulty is a real impairment that limits claimant’s employment opportunities to the rare job which requires no regular, responsive communication.”

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

2. “The Commissioner argues that Ms. Jones’s speech impairment is not so severe as that of the claimant in Bailey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir.2000), a similar ease cited and distinguished by the District Court. This may well be true. The question before us, however, is not simply whether Ms. Jones’s speech difficulties are as severe as Bailey’s were. The question, instead, is whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole can support a finding that Ms. Jones’s difficulties are “slight or minimal.””

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

3. “If the claimant wins at the third step (a listed impairment), she must be held disabled, and the case is over.”

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