Draper v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2013. (2) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 27, 2009, the alleged onset date ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (b), 404.1571 et seq., 416.920(b) and 416.971 et seq.). (3) The claimant has the following severe impairments: bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, polysubstance dependence to include alcohol, amphetamines, opiates and marijuana ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (c) and 416.920(c)). (4) The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Sub-part P, Appendix 1 ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (d) and 416.920(d)). (5) After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that, based on all of the impairments, including the substance use disorders, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567 (c) and 416.967(c) except he can lift and carry 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently. He can sit and stand two hours at one time for a total of six hours in an eight hour day. He requires a low stress job of a four on a scale of one to ten. He cannot have contact with the public and would require limited contact with co-workers. He can perform more than routine and less than complex tasks. Due to substance abuse the claimant would miss three or more days of work per month”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 967 F. Supp. 2d 1263 - Henn v. Colvin

2. “The fact that Draper tries to maintain her home and does her best to engage in ordinary life activities is not inconsistent with her complaints of pain, and in no way directs, a finding that she is able to engage in light work. As we said in McCoy v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 1138, 1147 (8th Cir.1982) (en banc), the test is whether the claimant 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.” In other words, evidence of performing general housework does not preclude a finding of disability. In Rainey v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 292, 293 (8th Cir.1995), the claimant washed dishes, did light cooking, read, watched TV, visited with his mother, and drove to shop for groceries. We noted that these were activities that were not substantial evidence of the ability to do full-time, competitive work. In Baumgarten v. Chater, 75 F.3d 366, 369 (8th Cir.1996), the ALJ pointed to the claimant’s daily activities, which included making her bed, preparing food, performing light housekeeping, grocery shopping, and visiting friends. We found this to be an unpersuasive reason to deny benefits: “We have repeatedly held ... that ‘the ability to do activities such as light housework and visiting with friends provides little or no support for the finding that a claimant can perform full-time competitive work.’ ” Id. (quoting Hogg v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 276, 278 (8th C”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 620 F. Supp. 2d 1002 - Hamel v. Astrue