From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yurek v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
Sep 1, 2009
No. 5:08-CV-500-FL (E.D.N.C. Sep. 1, 2009)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding "the DOT's reasoning level three requirement conflicts with the ALJ's prescribed limitation that [an individual can] perform only simple, routine, repetitive work" and collecting cases

Summary of this case from Eddie v. Berryhill
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

No. 5:08-CV-500-FL.

September 1, 2009

ORDER

LOUISE FLANAGAN, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. No objections to the M R have been filed, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. This matter is ripe for ruling.

The court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. as its own, and, for the reasons stated therein, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, defendant's motion is DENIED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the M R. The clerk of court is directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Summaries of

Yurek v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
Sep 1, 2009
No. 5:08-CV-500-FL (E.D.N.C. Sep. 1, 2009)

holding "the DOT's reasoning level three requirement conflicts with the ALJ's prescribed limitation that [an individual can] perform only simple, routine, repetitive work" and collecting cases

Summary of this case from Eddie v. Berryhill

holding remand is required where the ALJ fails to obtain an explanation for an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony that a claimant could perform a job that the DOT classified as reasoning level three when the ALJ limited the claimant to simple and repetitive tasks

Summary of this case from Weaver v. Colvin

finding "that the DOT's reasoning level three requirement conflicts with the ALJ's prescribed limitation that Claimant could perform only simple, routine, repetitive work" and remanding to the ALJ to address the conflict

Summary of this case from Martin v. Astrue

remanding because "reasoning level three requirement conflicts with the ALJ's prescribed limitation that Claimant could perform only simple, routine, repetitive work" and ALJ relied on VE testimony that claimant could perform, among other things, a reasoning level three job

Summary of this case from Plemmons v. Berryhill
Case details for

Yurek v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN G. YUREK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

Date published: Sep 1, 2009

Citations

No. 5:08-CV-500-FL (E.D.N.C. Sep. 1, 2009)

Citing Cases

Weaver v. Colvin

milar to reasoning levels one and two.") (unpublished) (citation omitted) with Lee v. Colvin, No.…

Rafael G. v. O'Malley

Thus, when a claimant “allege[s] that an impairment creates a functional limitation or restriction,” or when…

10 Citing Cases