Meissl v. Barnhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, the ALJ found that Meissl could perform not just simple tasks but also ones that had some element of repetitiveness to them. A reasoning level of one on the DOT scale requires slightly less than this level of reasoning. While reasoning level two notes the worker must be able to follow “detailed” instructions, it also (as previously noted) downplayed the rigorousness of those instructions by labeling them as being “uninvolved.” The Court finds that there is much to recommend for believing that Meissl’s reasoning level is at level two rather than at level one. A reasoning level of one indicates, both by the fact that it is the lowest rung on the development scale as well as the fairly limited reasoning required to do the job, as applying to the most elementary of occupations; only the slightest bit of rote reasoning being required. For example, the DOT describes the following jobs as requiring only a reasoning level of one: Counting cows as they come off a truck (job title Checker (motor trans.)); pasting labels on filled whiskey bottles (job title Bottling-Line Attendant (beverage)); and tapping the lid of cans with a stick (job title Vacuum Tester, Cans). See DOT at 931, 936, 938. Someone able to perform simple, repetitive instructions indicates a level of reasoning sophistication above those listed. Other courts have so held. See Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1176 (10th Cir.2005) (holding that “level-two reasoning appears more consistent with Plaintiffs RFC” to “”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 61 F. Supp. 3d 925 - Phillips v. Colvin · 903 F. Supp. 2d 1200 - Skeens v. Astrue

2. “it takes for a typical worker to learn the job's duties. DOT at 1009. A job's reasoning level, by contrast, gauges the minimal ability a worker needs to complete the job's tasks themselves. As one court noted,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 383 F. Supp. 3d 1095 - Joanna Lynn F. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

3. “the DOT's use of the word 'detailed' with the Social Security regulations' use of the word 'detailed instructions.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alker v. SSA