Hackett v. Barnhart

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claimant's limitation to \simple and routine work tasks\ is \inconsistent with the demands of level-three reasoning\
• concluding that “level-two reasoning appears more consistent with” the claimant’s ability to perform “simple and routine work tasks”
• concluding that an RFC allowing a plaintiff to perform simple and routine work tasks was suited to a reasoning level of 2
• holding that a limitation to “simple and routine work tasks” is “inconsistent with the demands of level-three reasoning.”
• concluding that an RFC allowing a plaintiff to work “simple and routine work tasks” was suited to a reasoning level of 2
• holding that a limitation to “simple and routine work tasks” is “inconsistent with the demands of level-three reasoning.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).