Ouroukov v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that medical observations that the claimant was “well-oriented” undermined his subjective complaints of fatigue
• finding that there is “no conflict between the ALJ’s step five determination that [plaintiff] could complete only simple tasks and the vocational expert’s testimony that [plaintiff] could do jobs that the U.S. Department of Labor categorizes at ‘Reasoning Level 2’”
• holding “there was no conflict between the ALJ's step five determination 4 that Abrew could complete only simple tasks and the vocational expert's testimony that Abrew 5 could do jobs that the U.S. Department of Labor categorizes at “Reasoning Level 2”
• holding “there was no conflict 7 between the ALJ’s step five determination that Abrew could complete only simple tasks and the 8 vocational expert’s testimony that Abrew could do jobs that the U.S. Department of Labor categorizes 9 at ‘Reasoning Level 2’”
• holding “there was no conflict between the ALJ’s 22 step five determination that Abrew could complete only simple tasks and the vocational expert’s 23 testimony that Abrew could do jobs that the U.S. Department of Labor categorizes at “Reasoning 24 Level 2”
• finding no conflict 2 between a limitation to only simple tasks and the VE testimony that claimant could perform jobs 3 that require Level 2 reasoning.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).