Cole v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis
661 F.3d 931 · 2011
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security · Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security · Ealy v. 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, [the claimant] must demonstrate that [she] is not currently engaged in substantial gainful employment at the time of the disability application. Second, [the claimant] must show that [she] suffers from a severe impairment. Third, if [the claimant] is not engaged in substantial gainful employment and has a severe impairment which is expected to last for at least twelve months, which meets or equals a listed impairment [under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, she] will be considered disabled. ... Fourth, if the Commissioner cannot make a determination of disability based on medical evaluations and current work activity and [the claimant] has a severe impairment, the Commissioner will then review [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity (RFC) and relevant past work to determine if [she] can do past work; if so, [he or she] is not disabled. If [the claimant’s] impairment prevents [her] from doing past work, the analysis proceeds to the fifth step: the Commissioner will consider [his or her] RFC, age, education and past work experience to determine if [she] can perform other work. If [she] cannot perform other work, the Commissioner will find [her] disabled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In accordance with [Social Security Ruling] 96-2p, the undersigned considered the administrative findings of fact made by the claimant’s treating physicians (Exhibits B2F, B15F & B16F). The. opinions are weighed as examining sources. Because these impairments are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and are consistent with other substantial evidence great weight is given to the examining sources medical opinions, as to the claimant’s impairments and the limitations and are constant with the claimant’s present residual physical functional capacity and they do not erode the occupational base.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. a treating source’s opinion is so patently deficient that the Commissioner could not possibly credit it; 2. if the Commissioner adopts the opinion of the treating source or makes findings consistent with the opinion; or 3. where the Commissioner has met the goal of [the good reasons requirement] even though she has not complied with the terms of the regulation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.