James Young v. Jo Anne B. 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 when the hypothetical question to the vocational expert does not include all medically supported limitations, the ALJ’s decision cannot stand
• concluding that a limitation of “simple, routine, repetitive, low stress work with limited contact with coworkers and limited contact with the public” was inadequate to take into account the claimant’s limitations
• concluding that a limitation of “simple, routine, repetitive, low stress work with limited contact with coworkers and limited contact with the public” was inadequate to take into account the claimant’s limitations
• holding that if the ALJ can make a conclusive finding at any step that the claimant either is or is not disabled then she need not progress to the next step
• recognizing that the claimant has the burden in steps one through four
• noting that knowledge of such limitations may be imputed but reversing because ALJ asked a series of confusing hypothetical questions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).