Amy Thomas v. Nancy A. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672

Background

Amy Thomas, 34, morbidly obese with osteoarthritis, depression, anxiety, and IQ of 70, applied for SSI asserting disability and inability to work.
ALJ found her impairments severe but concluded she retained an RFC for unskilled sedentary work limited to 1–2 step tasks; ALJ gave "little weight" to treating physician Dr. Roland Hollis's March 2013 and March 2014 RFC forms.
The Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed the denial of benefits; Thomas appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
The ALJ discounted Dr. Hollis’s opinions as conclusory, internally inconsistent, inadequately supported by treatment notes, and inconsistent with other examining physicians’ findings and Thomas’s daily activities.
A vocational expert testified the claimant could work as a new accounts clerk and a machine tender; Commissioner concedes machine tending was erroneous, leaving new accounts clerk as the relied-upon job.
The Eighth Circuit found an apparent unresolved conflict between the RFC (1–2 step tasks; incidental interpersonal contact) and the DOT description for new accounts clerk (reasoning level 3; interviews customers) because the expert did not reconcile the discrepancy at the hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly discounted treating physician Hollis’s RFC opinions	Hollis’s assessments should have received controlling/great weight as treating physician	ALJ correctly gave little weight because the opinions were conclusory, inconsistent with his own notes, and contradicted by other medical opinions and claimant activities	Affirmed: ALJ permissibly discredited Hollis’s RFC opinions; substantial evidence supports that weight decision
Whether the ALJ’s RFC (1–2 step tasks, incidental contact) is consistent with DOT for new accounts clerk	RFC precludes level-3 reasoning jobs; expert testimony that claimant can be a new accounts clerk conflicts with DOT	Commissioner argued DOT is generic and does not preclude expert testimony that some positions fit the RFC	Reversed/Remanded: Apparent unresolved conflict existed; ALJ should have elicited an explanation from the vocational expert and resolved the conflict before relying on the testimony
Whether the vocational expert’s testimony constitutes substantial evidence without reconciliation with the DOT	Expert testimony alone is sufficient	Expert’s testimony is unreliable when it appears to conflict with DOT and no explanation was elicited	Held for Thomas: Expert testimony could not be relied on absent inquiry into the apparent conflict
Whether the case should be remanded and what for	Remand for benefits or further proceedings	Remand for further step-five determination with proper VE inquiry	Court vacated judgment and remanded to SSA for a new step-five determination (further VE explanation required)

Key Cases Cited

Vossen v. Astrue, 612 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2010) (treating physician opinions normally entitled to great weight)
Fentress v. Berryhill, 854 F.3d 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (treating opinion may be discounted when other medical assessments are better supported)
Toland v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2014) (conclusory checkbox RFCs have little evidentiary value)
Moore v. Colvin, 769 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT)
Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2010) (RFC limiting claimant to simple one- to two-step tasks confines claimant to level-1 reasoning occupations)
Jones v. Chater, 72 F.3d 81 (8th Cir. 1995) (ALJ may not rely on unexplained expert testimony that appears to conflict with the DOT)
Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2017) (burden at step five; use of VE testimony to identify jobs claimant can perform)
Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (illustrative discussion of DOT reasoning levels and their scope)