Carnes v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
936 F.2d 1215 · 1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Luebertha INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee (1997), 107 F.3d -986 - Ingram v. Chater (1997)
2 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Martin v. Sullivan · Brady v. Heckler · Pitzer v. Sullivan · Bell v. Bowen
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements of the Act through December 31, 2006. 2) Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA) since March 28, 2003, the alleged onset date of her disability ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (b), 404.1571 et seq.). 3) Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: osteoarthritis; status post diffuse large cell lymphoma in the neck with complete remission; status post bilateral volar wrist ganglion cyst which was excised; and lumbar degenerative disc disease ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (c)). 4) Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 ( 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (d), 404.1525, 404.1526). 5) Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to sit up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, stand 3 to 4 hours in an 8-hour workday, and lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. Plaintiff can never climb, work at heights, or work around dangerous machinery. Thus, Plaintiff retains the RFC to perform a range of sedentary to light work activity on a sustained basis. 6) Plaintiff is capable of performing her past relevant work as a sewing machine operator and cashier/checker, as she previously performed those jobs. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by Plaintiffs RFC ( 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565 ). 7) Plaintiff has not been under a “disability,” as defined in the A”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To require [Ingram] to produce X-ray evidence of more advanced arthritis is ... to ignore the 'profound effect of excessive weight on a weight-bearing joint' which justifies the 'relatively modest pathological threshold' imposed by [§ 9.09A].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The ALJ ... imposed unjustifiable new requirements to Listing [9.09A] by requiring Carnes to show that her arthritis is more than minimal, and that her limitation of motion is 'significant.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.