Thompson v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
815 F.3d 781 · 2016
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1155 · 38 U.S.C. § 7292
Relies on United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd. · Perrin v. United States · Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury · Lockheed Corporation v. Sheila E. Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force · Cushman v. Shinseki
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]ain must affect some aspect of 'the normal working movements of the body' such as 'excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance,' 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 , in order to constitute functional loss”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saunders v. Wilkie“makes clear that functional loss may be due to pain and that pain may render a part seriously disabled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saunders v. Wilkie“cannot perform the normal working movements of the body.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saunders v. Wilkie
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.