Nelms v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis
386 F.2d 971 · 1967
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 1984 · most notably Emil C. Timmerman v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W., Kenneth Marks v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of H.E.W. (1975), Breeden v. Weinberger (1974)
11 federal appellate · 7 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Branham v. Gardner · Lane v. Gardner · Sayers v. Gardner · Ross v. Gardner · Polly v. Gardner
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Act nowhere states a requirement that a claimant establish his disability by ‘objective’ medical evidence. In a case such as the present one, much of the evidence was subjective in nature, appellant’s primary complaint being that of incapacitation because of extreme pain. This Court, as well as others, has considered the infection of an examiner’s findings by such an erroneous legal standard to be reversible error, no matter what our own view be as to the correctness of his ultimate conclusion. * * * ” “ * * * We conclude, however, that while these amendments confirm the examiner’s requirement that ‘the existence of an impairment must be established by * * * medical, clinical, or laboratory evidence,’ they do not support his insistence that the medical evidence be ‘objective’. Hence our need to reverse is not obviated by these recent amendments to the Act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The record may fairly be considered conclusive as to appellant's inability to engage in gainful activities consisting of heavy manual labor, where lifting and bending is required, and in work requiring a relatively high degree of dexterity. Thus, the principal impairment alleged which might preclude appellant's employment in those light, sedentary jobs which demand neither of the above qualifications is his complaint of continuous, knife-like pains in his back. In discounting the severity of the pain complained of, the Secretary did not apply the proper standards. 202”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jenkins v. Gardner
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.