Luna v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.3d 1032 · 2010
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 11 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Halray Harman v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · Lingenfelter v. Astrue · Booz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Vasquez v. Astrue · Lawrence E. Bruton v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting such evidence, (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be „ resolved before a determination of disability can be made, and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled were such evidence credited. Id.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court may, on motion of the Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause shown before the Commissioner files the Commissioner’s answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further action by the Commissioner of Social Security, and it may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walters v. Colvin“We cannot conclude based on the record before us whether the decisions concerning [the claimant] were reconcilable or inconsistent. There was only one day between the denial of [the claimant’s] first application and the disability onset date specified in the award for her successful second application, but she may have presented different medical evidence to support the two applications, or there might be some other reason to explain the change. Given this uncertainty, remand for further factual proceedings was an appropriate remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walters v. Colvin
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.