Roberts v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The First Circuit has determined that: The ALJ ... was obliged to ‘compare the physical and mental demands of [claimant’s] past work with [her] ... functional capability.’ See Manso-Pizarro [v . Secretary of Health and Human Services ], supra, 76 F.3d [15,] 17 [(1 Cir., 1996)]. Obviously, in order to meet this requirement, an RFC assessment was necessary. However, the general rule is that an expert is needed to assess the extent of functional loss. Id. An ALJ may determine RFC only ‘[i]f th[e] evidence suggests a relatively mild ... impairment posing, to the layperson’s eye, no significant ... restrictions.’ Id. at 17-18. }}: >]; ijt As we have stated, an expert’s RFC evaluation is required where ‘the record ... is sufficiently ramified that understanding it requires more than a layperson’s effort at a commonsense functional capacity assessment.’ Manso-Pizarro, supra, 76 F.3d at 19 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 793 F. Supp. 2d 485 - BRAWDERS v. Astrue