Brewster v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 70 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““[a] single piece of evidence will not satisfy the substantiality test if the [Commissioner] ignores, or fails to resolve, a conflict created by countervailing evidence. Nor is evidence substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence — particularly certain types of evidence (e.g., that offered by treating physicians) — or if it really constitutes not evidence but mere conclusion.””

   23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schonewolf v. Callahan · Robison v. Barnhart

2. “Under that five step analysis, the [ALJ] determines first whether an individual is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If that individual is engaged in substantial gainful activity, he will be found not disabled regardless of the medical findings. If an individual is found not to be engaged in substantial gainful activity, the [ALJ] will determine whether the medical evidence indicates that the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. If the [ALJ] determines that the claimant suffers from a severe impairment, the [ALJ] will next determine whether the impairment meets or equals a list of impairments in Appendix 1 of sub-part P of Regulations No. 4 of the Code of Regulations. If the individual meets or equals the list of impairments, the claimant will be found disabled. If he does not, the [ALJ] must determine if the individual is capable of performing his past relevant work considering his severe impairment. If the [ALJ] determines that the individual is not capable of performing his past relevant work, then she must determine whether, considering the claimant’s age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity, he is capable of performing other work which exists in the national economy.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reed v. Barnhart · 398 F. Supp. 2d 295 - Charlton v. Barnhart

3. “(1) An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful employment will not be found to be disabled regardless of medical findings ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (b)); (2) An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to be disabled ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (c)); (3) If an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment which meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P, a finding of disabled will be made without consideration of vocational factors ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (d)); (4) If an individual is capable of performing work he or she has done in the past, a finding of not disabled must be made ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (e)); (5) If an individual’s impairment is so severe as to preclude the performance of past work, other factors including age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if other work can be performed. ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (f)).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dougherty v. Astrue · 927 F. Supp. 785 - Alexander v. Shalala