Kelbe Corp. v. Hall

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an RFC determination limiting a claimant to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and not production rate or pace work was consistent with ALJ’s assessment that claimant had moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace
• finding no conflict between VE’s testimony concerning overhead reaching, and DOT, which did not address overhead reaching
• finding no conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT when the VE testified that overhead 23 reaching was not contained in the DOT
• noting vocational testimony that the DOT mentions reaching, but not overhead reaching
• “Having determined that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC determination, [plaintiff’s] argument [that the ALJ erred in relying on the VE because the hypothetical posed to the VE was based upon a flawed RFC assessment] is rejected.”
• an RFC determination limiting a claimant to simple, routine, repetitive tasks was consistent with the ALJ's assessment that claimant had moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence and pace

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).