Bertha M. Bittel v. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 13 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Symptoms which are real to the claimant although unaccompanied by objective medical data may support a claim for disability benefits, providing, of course, the claimant satisfies the requisite burden of proof.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Young v. Weinberger · Cunningham v. Richardson

2. ““ * * * Furthermore, it should be noted that Mrs. Bittel complained of several physical impairments other than congestive heart failure. Since the Secretary must evaluate the evidence in relation to the particular individual seeking benefits, where there are several illnesses suffered simultaneously by the claimant, the combined effect of the impairment must be considered before the Secretary denies the payment of disability benefits. Dillon v. Celebrezze, 345 F.2d 753, 755-757 (4th Cir. 1965). “Physical impairment is defined by the Act as that which is ‘demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’. Thus, Congress chose not to limit to laboratory techniques and evaluations the kind of evidence which may support a claim of disability, but instead adopted a broader standard encompassing cdl medical techniques. And as was stated in Ber v. Celebrezze, supra [2 Cir.], 332 F.2d [293] at 299: ‘ * * * inasmuch as the applicable section of the Social Security Act requires a showing of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, even pain unaccompanied by objectively observable symptoms which is nevertheless real to the sufferer and so intense as to be disabling will support a claim for disability benefits.’ Likewise the Fourth Circuit in Dillon v. Celebrezze, 345 F.2d 753, 755 (4th Cir. 1965) pointed out that subjective evidence of the claimant’s pain and disability is one of the elements of proving a qualification for benefits under ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ellis v. Finch · 408 F. Supp. 842 - Twardesky v. Weinberger

3. ““The undersigned does not doubt the claimant has some pain. The quality, duration and severity of the discomfort are, of course, known only to the claimant. However, while the allegation that there is an impairment cannot be disputed, nevertheless, the remaining functional capacities demonstrated by medical findings of record, adequately negate a finding of significant physical limitation due to structural change and/or significant pain and discomfort. Pain alone is not the anatomical, physiological or psychological evidence required to support vocational incapacity at the statutory level, lacking persuasive indications that the pain results from ‘anatomical, physiological or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.’ 20 C.F.R. [404.1501(c)].” Decision of ALJ at 15, Administrative Record at 21.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 438 F. Supp. 1270 - Greth v. Califano · 498 F. Supp. 478 - Fields v. Harris