Forehand v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The ALJ further found that Forehand’s allegations of limitation were inconsistent with her daily activities. Forehand’s ability to engage in some life activities, however does not support a finding that she retains the ability to work. See Brosnahan [v. Barnhart], 336 F.3d 671, 677 (8th Cir.2003) (“[W]e have held, in the context of a fibromyalgia case, that the ability to engage in activities such as cooking, cleaning, and hobbies, does not constitute substantial evidence of the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.”) We have long stated that to determine whether a claimant has the residual functional capacity necessary to be able to work we look to whether she has “the ability to perform the requisite physical acts day in and day out, in the sometimes competitive and stressful conditions in which real people work in the real world.” McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir.l982)(en banc).... Notwithstanding this well-settled case law, our mandate is frequently ignored, and appears to have been in this case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 628 F. Supp. 2d 1028 - Webster v. Astrue · 368 F. Supp. 2d 924 - Giles v. Barnhart

2. “A treating physician's opinion is generally entitled to substantial weight,... [but it] must be supported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data.”

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