tasks did not adequately encompass a finding that the plaintiff often had deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace, the Circuit Court acknowledged that there could be an explanation for the omission such as a finding that the deficiency was so minimal that it would not limit the plaintiffs ability to perform simple tasks. (Doc. 13 at 24.) Second, Defen dant asserts that the plaintiff in Ramirez had an extensive mental health history and evidence suggested that her deficiency in pace would limit her ability to perform simple tasks under a production quota where here no evidence suggests that Plaintiffs deficiency in pace would limit her ability to perform unskilled work. (Id. at 24-25 (citing Ramirez, 372 F.3d at 554; McDonald v. Astrue, 293 Fed.Appx. 941, 946 (3d Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>)).) The Court is not persuaded by the
holding that a hypothetical question which limited the plaintiff to simple routine tasks adequately captured the aljs conclusion that plaintiff was moderately limited in concentration persistence and pace holding a writ was appropriate when the authorization was not limited as to time and not limited to specific healthcare providers holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion and thus the aljs unexplained conclusion was beyond meaningful review holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion holding that in deciding on a facial constitutional challenge it is improper to consider only limited hypothetical applications