Gaultney v. Weinberger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 598 F. Supp. 1250 - Blumberg v. Heckler · Lewis v. Weinberger

2. ““However, we have never suggested that the subjective evidence should take precedence over conflicting objective medical testimony; nor have we ever held that all pain is disabling. . Therefore, the question of how much pain is disabling is for the Administrative Law Judge, whose task it is to resolve conflicts in the evidence. . . . Gaultney asserts that the Administrative Law Judge ignored the evidence of pain. However, we see no reason to question the Judge’s statement that he . considered and weighed all of the demonstrative medical evidence, considered the diagnoses and expert medical opinions, weighed the testimony of the claimant as to his pain and discomfort on movement and activity, and the lay testimony from witnesses who testified at the hearing. Further, the Judge acknowledges that ‘[i]t has been held that pain alone can be disabling.’ But he properly states that a claimant’s assertion that he is disabled by his pain does not foreclose attack on his credibility. It is not necessary inconsistent to find that a claimant suffers pain in fact, and yet is not so severely impaired as to meet the stringent test for disability imposed by the Act. This is precisely the finding of the Administrative Law Judge, which we now affirm.” ( 505 F.2d at 945-946 )”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 598 F. Supp. 1250 - Blumberg v. Heckler · 482 F. Supp. 288 - Bowman v. Califano

3. ““If this claim were well founded, it would justify reversal or remand. . It is well settled that pain alone can be disabling, even where its existence is unsupported by ‘objective medical, clinical or laboratory evidence.’ . . . Furthermore, we have often held that the judge must consider subjective evidence of pain as testified to both by the claimant and by other lay witnesses.” ( 505 F.2d at 945 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 482 F. Supp. 288 - Bowman v. Califano