942 F. Supp. 2d 301 - Kane v. Astrue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “First, the [Commissioner] considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If [s]he is not, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will consider h[er] disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.... Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant’s severe impairment, [s]he has the residual functional capacity to perform h[er] past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform h[er] past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wright v. Colvin · Albano v. Colvin

2. “the ALJ need not resolve every conflict in the record, 'the crucial factors in any determination must be set forth with sufficient specificity to enable [the reviewing court] to decide whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence.' " Calzada v. Asture , 753 F.Supp.2d 250 , 268-69 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Sullivan, J.) (citations omitted) (quoting Ferraris v. Heckler , 728 F.2d 582 , 587 (2d Cir. 1984) ). To fulfill this burden, the ALJ must "adequately explain his reasoning in making the findings on which his ultimate decision rests”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gallishaw v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · Price v. Berryhill

3. “Generally, [the SSA] give[s] more weight to opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairments) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nascimento v. Colvin · 98 F. Supp. 3d 588 - Marinello v. Commissioner of Social Security