Cartier v. Commissioner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence”
• holding that an RFC limitation to simple instructions does not conflict with jobs that have a GED reasoning level of two
• holding that an RFC limitation to simple instructions does not conflict with jobs that have a GED reasoning level of two
• holding that a limitation to following simple instruc- tions does not create an apparent conflict with jobs requiring a rea- soning level of two
• holding that level two instructions are “not . . . limited in length”
• holding that there is no apparent conflict between an RFC that limits a claimant to the ability to “understand, carry-out, and remember simple instructions,” and positions identified in the DOT with a reasoning level of 2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).