HBMA Holdings, Inc. v. LSF9 Stardust Holdings, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no apparent conflict between a limitation to “simple, routine, repetitive” tasks and the reasoning required by Level 2 occupations
• holding that there was not an apparent conflict between a claimant whose RFC limited her to jobs involving “simple, routine, repetitive tasks” and a job with GED reasoning level two
• explaining that “‘short’ is inconsistent with ‘detailed’ because detail and length are highly correlated. Generally, the longer the instructions, the more detail they can include.”
• holding no conflict between the DOT’s Level 2 reasoning and an RFC for “simple, routine, repetitive tasks of unskilled work”
• holding “that a limitation to ‘short’ instructions was 12 inconsistent with the concept of ‘detailed but uninvolved instructions’ in [RDL] 2 because detail and length are highly correlated”
• explaining that while “short, simple instructions” appear to conflict with Level 2 reasoning, “simple, routine repetitive tasks of unskilled work” do not because detail is more about length than complexity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).