Bridges v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 2 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a physical or mental impairment prevents one from obtaining a job, or from even being considered for the job, he is just as unable to engage in that activity as he would be were he unable to perform the work after he had obtained the employment. The ability to perform work existing in the appropriate labor market requires a determination of whether the claimant would be considered for employment if a job vacancy occurred. If, in practice, the claimant could not reasonably expect to be hired, then no job exists for him. The Act asks if the claimant is able to engage in substantial gainful work. If no one would hire him, he cannot engage in substantial gainful work. Extended to its broadest reaches, the Secretary's position would nullify the purpose of the Act, for, unless the claimant is bedridden and incapable of any movement, there most probably is some work he physically could do, though there might be no likelihood that he could successfully compete for the job.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harrison v. Gardner · Mann v. Gardner

2. ““Mere ability to perform such jobs is insufficient to justify a denial of disability benefits. Specific findings by the examiner are necessary on the issue of whether claimant’s physical condition would prevent him from being hired or from competing for jobs, for us to determine whether correct legal standards have been applied in deciding this case. . . . it is necessary also that there be a showing of a reasonable opportunity for the claimant to compete in the manner normally pursued by persons genuinely seeking work, for a job within his determined capabilities. See Cele-brezze v. Kelly, 5 Cir. 1964, 331 F.2d 981 ; Alsobrooks v. Gardner, 5 Cir. 1966, 357 F.2d 110 .” Bridges v. Gardner, 368 F.2d 86 [5th Cir., 1966]. “The ability to perform work existing in the appropriate labor market requires a determination of whether the claimant would be considered for employment if a job vacancy occurred. If, in practice, the claimant could not reasonably expect to be hired, then no job exists for him.” Gardner v. Smith, 368 F.2d 77 [5th Cir., 1966],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scanlon v. Richardson

3. “of whether or not claimant's physical or mental impairment would prevent him from being hired to fill jobs, if such jobs were open in the area in which claimant could reasonably be expected to compete.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daniel v. Gardner