Antonio Viverette v. Commissioner of Social Security, 13 F.4th 1309

Claimant Antonio Viverette applied for SSI, citing physical impairments (including a left below-knee amputation) and cognitive limits (“slow learning”); he has limited formal education and no work history.
The ALJ found Viverette limited to sedentary work and to "simple, routine, and repetitive tasks" (RFC), but relied on a vocational expert (VE) to identify three representative jobs: document preparer (DOT reasoning level 3) and two level-1 reasoning jobs (final assembler; check weigher).
The VE testified to 104,000 document preparer jobs and combined totals of ~125,000 jobs nationwide; the ALJ referenced these cumulatively and concluded Viverette can adjust to other work.
The Eleventh Circuit had previously required ALJs to identify and resolve apparent conflicts between the DOT and VE testimony (Washington) and recently addressed reasoning-level tensions (Buckwalter).
The panel held there is an apparent conflict between a limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and DOT reasoning level 3; the ALJ failed to address that conflict and the error was not harmless given reliance on the document preparer numbers and gaps in the VE’s SOC/DOT breakdown (Goode).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an RFC limiting claimant to "simple, routine, and repetitive tasks" is apparently inconsistent with DOT reasoning level 3	Viverette: such an RFC conflicts with level 3 reasoning and the ALJ must address the conflict	Commissioner: no conflict; ALJ permissibly relied on VE testimony showing claimant can perform the job	Held: There is an apparent conflict between that RFC and level 3 reasoning; Eleventh Circuit joins Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in so holding
Whether the ALJ’s failure to resolve the apparent conflict was harmless because other level-1 jobs exist	Viverette: error is not harmless; document preparer jobs dominate the VE’s totals and VE testimony about SOC counts was unreliable	Commissioner: error harmless because final assembler and check weigher (level 1) exist in significant numbers	Held: Error not shown harmless. Remand required because the ALJ relied on cumulative figures, the VE did not isolate DOT jobs within SOC codes (Goode), and the ALJ made no findings on whether remaining jobs alone are "significant"

Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security, 906 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2018) (ALJs must identify and resolve apparent conflicts between DOT and VE testimony)
Buckwalter v. Acting Comm’r of Social Security, 5 F.4th 1315 (11th Cir. 2021) (no apparent conflict between simple-instruction RFC and DOT level 2 reasoning)
Goode v. Commissioner of Social Security, 966 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2020) (VE must quantify how many jobs within an SOC code the claimant can perform)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (ALJ must determine whether jobs exist in significant numbers nationally)
Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (apparent conflict exists between simple-task RFC and level 3 reasoning)
Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005) (expressing tension between simple-task limitations and level 3 reasoning)
Thomas v. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2018) (apparent conflict where claimant limited to one- to two-step tasks yet DOT lists level 3 reasoning for job)
Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2009) (no apparent conflict where record showed claimant could perform level 3 tasks; court examined facts rather than abstract tension)