Groeper v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 2 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An ALJ's decision that a claimant can return to his past work must be based on more than conclusory statements. The ALJ must specifically set forth the claimant's limitations, both physical and mental, and determine how those limitations affect the claimant's residual functional capacity.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 107 F.3d -986 - Ingram v. Chater · Miller v. Callahan

2. “According to the Secretary's interpretation, sections 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) require careful consideration of the interaction of the limiting effects of the person's impairment(s) and the physical and mental demands of his or her PRW to determine whether the individual can still do that work.... The decision as to whether the claimant retains the functional capacity to perform past work which has current relevance has far-reaching implications and must be developed and explained fully in the disability decision. Since this is an important and, in some instances, a controlling issue, every effort must be made to secure evidence that resolves the issues as clearly and explicitly as circumstances permit. Sufficient documentation will be obtained to support the decision. Any case requiring consideration of PRW will contain enough information on past work to permit a decision as to the individual's ability to return to such past work.... Adequate documentation of past work includes factual information about those work demands which have a bearing on the medically established limitations. Detailed information about strength, endurance, manipulative ability, mental demands and other job requirements must be obtained as appropriate. This information will be derived from a detailed description of the work obtained from the claimant, employer, or other informed source....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 708 F. Supp. 2d 941 - Rosa v. Astrue · 355 F. Supp. 2d 991 - Hamilton v. Barnhart

3. “First, the Secretary determines whether the claimant is presently engaged in a ‘substantial gainful activity.’ Second, the Secretary analyzes whether the claimant has a severe impairment — one that significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. Third, the Secretary determines whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals an impairment listed in the regulations; if so, the Secretary finds that the claimant is disabled without considering, the claimant’s age, education, and work experience. Fourth, the Secretary considers the claimant’s residual functional capacity and the physical and mental demands of the claimant’s past work to determine whether the claimant can still perform that work. If the claimant has the residual capacity to perform that work, the Secretary finds that the claimant is not disabled. Finally, if the Secretary determines that the claimant cannot perform the past work, the Secretary determines whether any substantial gainful activity exists in the national economy which the claimant can perform.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 107 F.3d -986 - Ingram v. Chater · Norng v. Shalala