Miller v. Finch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 3 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The claimant met the special earnings requirements of the Act on February 2, 1977, the alleged disability onset date, and continues to meet them through the date of this decision. (2) The claimant has a seventh (7th) grade education. The most recent steady work experience was that of a storm door and window manufacturer. He has also worked as a drill operator and carpenter. (3) The medical evidence establishes that the claimant is presently suffering from diabetes; asthma and moderate obstructive pulmonary disease; and arthritis, cervical and lumbar spine. (4) Considering the claimant’s residual physical capacity and vocational background, claimant is able to perform the jobs described by the vocational expert and which are present in significant numbers in the region where claimant lives. (5) The evidence fails to establish that claimant’s impairments have prevented him from engaging in sub stantial gainful work activity for any continuous period beginning on or prior to the date of this decision which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months. (6) The claimant was not under a “disability” as defined under the Act, commencing at any time prior to the issuance of this decision.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gilliam v. Califano · Behnen v. Califano

2. ““An individual . . . shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work. For purposes of the preceding sentence (with respect to any individual), ‘work which exists in the national economy’ means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 342 F. Supp. 320 - Hughes v. Richardson · 363 F. Supp. 443 - Lafont v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare

3. ““The burden of proof has always been on the claimant to establish his right to disability benefits. This has been the law both prior and subsequent to the 1967 Amendments . . . There is no shifting of the burden of proof, but in any case it would not matter as the evidence here justified the Secretary’s decision. “It seems to be indicated by claimant’s brief that he is under the impression that the Secretary is required to show that jobs exist within a reasonable distance from claimant’s home and that claimant would be employed if he applied for such jobs. The law does not require this. Under the Act a person is not disabled entitling him to payments if he can engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 430 F.2d at 323, 324 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 342 F. Supp. 320 - Hughes v. Richardson