Marcus v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1382C (§ 1614 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 201 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 421 (§ 221 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States Inc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Consumer Alert · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Bowen v. Yuckert · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] medical assessment of what an individual can do in a work setting in spite of the functional limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of his or her medically determinable impairments).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“functional ability to stand, sit, follow instructions, lift or accomplish other of the tasks which may be necessary to engage in gainful activity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether a spousal or child claimant is disabled, however, the Secretary circumvents his statutory duty to determine the level of severity. The medical criteria of the Listings, as we have seen, were not intended to be used to deny claims but only to screen out clearly disabled individuals. By the Secretary’s own admissions, it is clear that the Listings do not cover all medical conditions and impairments, do not measure the combined effect and impact of the claimant’s impairments, and indeed do not make the more individualized inquiries into the full array of signs, symptoms and findings for the listed impairments [emphasis in original] to get a realistic evaluation of a person’s ability to work. Sfc * ¡¡C !}. * ^ While the Listings identify medical conditions that allow the Secretary to deem the individual unable to work, they do not conclusively measure the extent to which an individual is impaired. Even where the claimant suffers from conditions which are depicted by the Listings, a full understanding of the extent of impairment may require an individualized determination. Where an impairment is not listed, it is even more difficult to see the Listings criteria as dispositive of severity level since the evaluation of medical impairments involves particularized understandings of how medical conditions impair bodily functions and often cannot be translated into the limited clinical indicia of other impairments.”
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.