Northcutt v. Califano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 federal appellate · 8 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[although evidence of pain suffered by a claimant may be of necessity subjective in nature, and therefore difficult to evaluate, the administrative factfinder must give serious consideration to such evidence even though it is not fully corroborated by objective examinations and tests performed on the claimant. See Thorne v. Weinberger, 530 F.2d 580, 583 (4th Cir. 1976); Baerga v. Richardson, 500 F.2d 309, 312 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 931 [ 95 S.Ct. 1133 , 43 L.Ed.2d 403 ] (1975). While the claimant has the burden of proving that the disability asserted results from a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, direct medical evidence of the cause and effect relationship between a physical impairment and the claimant’s subjective pain need not be produced. See Klug v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 423, 427 (8th Cir. 1975). There is no question that pain can cause disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See Yawitz v. Weinberger, 498 F.2d 956, 960-61 (8th Cir. 1974); Murphy v. Gardner, 379 F.2d 1 , 7 n.8 (8th Cir. 1967).”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curtin v. Harris · Easley v. Schweiker

2. “Disregard of a claimant's subjective complaints of pain . . . is not justified solely because there exists no objective evidence in support of such complaints.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Polaski v. Heckler · Marcus v. Califano

3. ““The ALJ concluded that claimant was not entitled to receive disability insurance benefits because ‘claimant’s impairments when considered alone or in combination are not of such severity as to prevent her from engaging in substantial gainful activity.’ The ALJ apparently discredited testimony regarding the pain suffered by claimant because there was ‘no objective medical evidence indicating that claimant suffers from a spinal impairment of such severity as to cause disabling pain.’ * * * * * * “In the present case the ALJ discounted the claimant’s evidence of pain on the ground that there was no evidence of any severe spinal impairment that would cause disabling pain. Under our previous decisions, see, e. g., Murphy v. Gardner, [ 379 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1967)] supra at 5-7, this analysis places too much emphasis on the need to prove disability by objective proof. Of course under the Act there must be medical evidence of physical or mental impairment. Disregard of a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, however, is not justified solely because there exists no objective evidence in support of such complaints. Here claimant’s testimony of pain and disability has been corroborated by her husband and other lay witnesses. The e.vidence shows that the claimant, prior to her disability, had been a good worker, doing heavy work at various jobs in the garment factory. There is no finding or evidence that suggests she is malingering or not telling the truth. The basis for denial of he”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meek v. Califano