Bourinot v. Colvin’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
17 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Bowen v. Yuckert · Irlanda Ortiz v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · 14 soc.sec.rep.ser. 301, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 16,883 Ernest S. Avery v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An ALJ must always consider the medical opinions in [the] case record, ... and SSA regulations prioritize the opinions of a claimant’s treating sources. The treating source rule provides that the ALJ should give more weight to the opinions of treating physicians because these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) 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. Controlling weight will be given to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and . laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the ALJ considers an array of factors to determine what weight to grant the opinion, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the degree to which the opinion can be supported by relevant evidence, and the consisten cy of the opinion with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2)-(6); 416.927(c)(2)-(6). Further, the regulations require adjudicators to explain the weight given to a treating source opinion and the reasons supporting that decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By itself, the GAF cannot be used to ‘raise’ or ‘lower’ someone’s level of function. The GAF is only a snapshot opinion about the level of functioning. It is one opinion that we consider with all the evidence about a person’s functioning. Unless the clinician clearly explains the reasons behind his or her GAF rating, and the period to which the rating applies, it does not provide a reliable longitudinal picture of the claimant’s mental functioning for a disability analysis. Lane v. Colvin, No. C13-5658-MJP, 2014 WL 1912065 , (W.D.Wash. May 12, 2014)(quoting AM-13066).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.