899 F.3d 555
8th Cir.2018Background
- Christopher Stanton applied in 2013 for child insurance benefits and SSI based on bipolar disorder with alleged onset March 1, 2010; applications were denied and he requested a hearing.
- At the November 2014 hearing an ALJ found Stanton had severe impairments (ADHD, bipolar disorder, anxiety) but not disabled under the Listings and crafted an RFC limiting him to unskilled work and simple one- to two-step instructions.
- The ALJ posed a hypothetical to a vocational expert (VE) matching that RFC; the VE identified hospital/industrial cleaner jobs as available.
- The VE testified his opinion was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), but did not explain an apparent conflict between the DOT’s reasoning level for the identified jobs and the RFC.
- The ALJ relied on the VE’s testimony at step five to deny benefits; the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed to resolve the apparent conflict between the VE testimony and the DOT.
Issues
| Issue | Stanton's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ permissibly relied on VE testimony identifying jobs that appear to require higher reasoning than claimant’s RFC permits | VE testimony conflicted with DOT: claimant limited to 1–2 step tasks (Level 1 reasoning) but VE identified jobs with DOT Level 2 reasoning; ALJ failed to elicit a reasonable explanation | No conflict exists; claimant’s RFC overlaps Level 1 and Level 2 elements, or VE testimony and DOT are consistent | Reverse and remand: apparent conflict existed and ALJ did not elicit an adequate explanation from VE, so VE testimony was not substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1987) (outlines the five-step Social Security disability evaluation)
- Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2010) (discusses when simple, routine work can map to DOT reasoning levels)
- Thomas v. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2018) (ALJ must elicit a reasonable explanation when VE testimony appears to conflict with the DOT)
- Porch v. Chater, 115 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 1997) (VE testimony that conflicts with DOT must be identified and resolved before reliance)
- Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 1995) (same principle regarding unresolved conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)