Craig Buckins v. Nancy Berryhill
706 F. App'x 380
9th Cir.2017Background
- Craig Buckins appealed the denial of his applications for Social Security disability insurance and SSI; Ninth Circuit review was de novo.
- The ALJ found Buckins had an RFC limiting his right (non-dominant) arm to occasional front and lateral reaching and restricted him to simple, repetitive, routine tasks.
- A vocational expert (VE) testified Buckins could perform certain light occupations (housekeeping cleaner, ticket taker) despite those limits; the VE also identified three sedentary occupations as alternatives.
- The ALJ relied on the VE to find Buckins not disabled but did not inquire about apparent conflicts between the VE testimony and the DOT regarding reaching and reasoning demands.
- The court found the ALJ erred by failing to resolve apparent conflicts with the DOT for housekeeping cleaner and ticket taker, but the errors were harmless because the VE identified a sufficient number of alternative sedentary jobs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VE testimony conflicted with DOT on reaching demands for housekeeping cleaner and ticket taker | VE conflicted with DOT because DOT requires frequent/constant reaching inconsistent with RFC limiting right arm to occasional reach | ALJ relied on VE and claimant’s ability to use left arm; no harmful error because alternative jobs exist | ALJ erred by not asking VE to resolve apparent DOT conflicts on reaching; error harmless due to alternative sedentary jobs |
| Whether VE testimony conflicted with DOT on reasoning level for ticket taker | Ticket taker requires Level 3 Reasoning, inconsistent with RFC limiting claimant to simple, repetitive tasks | VE said claimant could do the job despite RFC | There was an apparent conflict; ALJ should have inquired; error not reversible here because of other jobs |
| Whether claimant waived DOT conflict by not raising it at hearing | Buckins argued conflict need not be waived because ALJ has affirmative duty to inquire | Commissioner argued claimant failed to preserve issue | Court held claimant did not waive; ALJ has duty to resolve apparent conflicts |
| Whether ALJ’s errors were harmless given alternative jobs identified | Buckins argued available children’s attendant jobs alone were not significant; total job count across jobs must be considered | Commissioner relied on total number across occupations including sedentary ones to show significance | Errors deemed harmless because combined job numbers (including three sedentary jobs) constituted a significant number nationally |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard for harmless error review in Social Security cases)
- Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2016) (ALJ must resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)
- Lamear v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ’s affirmative duty to address apparent VE/DOT conflicts; limits on relying on common experience)
- Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (apparent conflict where DOT reasoning level exceeds claimant’s RFC for simple tasks)
- Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2014) (what constitutes a "significant number" of jobs in national economy)