23907n Diaz’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Dielsi v. Falk (1996), Cheryl Wallace v. Oakwood Hosp. (2020)
6 district · 4 state decisions
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 Amato v. Bernard · Kross v. Western Electric Co. · Amaro v. Continental Can Co. · Drinkwater v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · Communications Workers v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'questions about the thoroughness and accuracy of the benefits determination' ") (quoted source omitted). 10. On balance, the evidence weighs in Mr. Bunger's favor and he meets his burden of establishing his entitlement to disability benefits through July 5, 2015. Whether as a result of CFS, fibromyalgia, or another condition, a preponderance of the evidence shows Mr. Bunger had a sickness precluding his ability to perform the high level of mental functioning required for the performance of his job as a Web Content Specialist, to sustain the necessary employment-related activities, or to maintain attendance at that job on a consistent basis. D. Disability From Any Gainful Occupation (July 6, 2015 through the present) 1. Mr. Bunger also seeks a determination that he is unable to perform any gainful occupation and entitled to LTD benefits from July 6, 2015 through the present. Mr. Bunger would not be entitled to those benefits if he was able to perform part-time work in any gainful occupation, whether or not offered by his employer, but chose not to. AR 436. 2. As a general rule, an ERISA claimant "must avail himself or herself of a plan's own internal review procedures before bringing suit in federal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“important policy considerations, including the reduction of frivolous litigation, the promotion of consistent treatment of claims, the provision of a nonadversarial method of claims settlement, the minimization of costs of claim settlement and a proper reliance on administrative expertise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[B]are assertions of futility are insufficient to bring a claim within the futility exception, which is designed to avoid the need to pursue an administrative review that is demonstrably doomed to fail.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.