Parra v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 32 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2009; 2. Claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 5, 2004, the alleged onset date; 3. Claimant has the following severe impairments: history of chronic alcohol abuse and anxiety disorder due to alcohol abuse, history of right breast cancer without metastases, history of COPD; 4. Claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments; 5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that, based on all of the impairments, including substance use disorder(s), the [Cjlaimant has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work except she has occasional limitations bending, stooping, crouching, crawling, kneeling and climbing. She has no other manipulative limitations apart from the fact that she is limited to the performance of overhead work involving the right arm on more than an occasional basis; she has no communicative impairments. She can make simple decisions and interact with the general public, supervisors and coworkers on at least an occasional basis. She must work in a temperature controlled environment and avoid concentrated amounts of atmospheric pollutants. Due to the adverse effects of her alcohol abuse and the residuals associated with such alcohol abuse, she would likely miss one day of work per week; 6. Due to her continuing ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 658 F. Supp. 2d 1340 - Delker v. Commissioner of Social Security

2. “(a) General. If we find that you are disabled and have medical evidence of your drug addiction or alcoholism, we must determine whether your drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability. (b) Process we will follow when we have medical evidence of your drug addiction or alcoholism. (1) The key factor we will examine in determining whether drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability is whether we would still find you disabled if you stopped using drugs or alcohol. (2) In making this determination, we will evaluate which of your current physical and mental limitations, upon which we based our current disability determination, would remain if you stopped using drugs or alcohol and then determine whether any or all of your remaining limitations would be disabling. (i) If we determine that your remaining limitations would not be disabling, we will find that your drug addiction or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to the determination of disability. (ii) If we determine that your remaining limitations are disabling, you are disabled independent of your drug addiction or alcoholism and we will find that your drug addiction or alcoholism is not a contributing factor material to the determination of disability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 817 F. Supp. 2d 111 - Newsome v. Astrue

3. “Congress sought through the CAAA to discourage alcohol and drug abuse, or at least not to encourage it with a permanent government subsidy. [Placing the burden of proving DAA materiality on the Commissioner] provides the opposite incentive. An alcoholic claimant who presents inconclusive evidence of materiality has no incentive to stop drinking, because abstinence may resolve his disabling limitations and cause his claim to be rejected or his benefits terminated. His claim would be guaranteed only as long as his substance abuse continues — a scheme that effectively subsidizes substance abuse in contravention of the statute’s purpose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cage v. Commissioner of Social Security