Gaspard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming Commissioner’s decision to rely on VE testimony despite implied conflict where adequate evidence supported VE testimony
• affirming Commissioner’s decision to rely on VE testimony despite implied confligt where adequate evidence supported VE testimony
• affirming Commissioner’s decision to rely on vocational expert testimony despite implied conflict where adequate evidence supported vocational expert testimony
• while the court “conclude[d] that a possibility exists that some jobs requiring reasoning level 2 or higher may conflict with plaintiff’s specific limitations,” it determined that “such conflict . . . [wa]s only arguable, not obvious or direct.”
• “[T]he Commissioner’s argument is well-taken that a limitation of ‘simple one or two- step tasks on a repetitive basis where concentration really isn’t required’ does not necessarily preclude ability to perform jobs with reasoning levels of 2 or higher.”
• “The Commissioner’s burden at Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process . . . is satisfied by showing the existence of only one job with a significant number of available positions that the claimant can perform.” (citing Evans v. Chater, 55 F.3d 530, 532–33 (10th Cir. 1995

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).