Edmond Talley v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 21-55071

Background:

Edmond Talley applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits (Title II) and SSI (Title XVI); ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed; Talley appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
ALJ assessed Talley with a residual functional capacity (RFC) for "light work" (which by regulation includes about six hours of standing/walking in an 8‑hour day) plus certain non‑exertional mental limitations, and relied on a vocational expert (VE) to find jobs at step five.
Talley later challenged the VE testimony, arguing the identified jobs required more standing/walking than his RFC permitted and that the VE relied on non‑DOT data inconsistent with the DOT.
Talley did not raise the non‑DOT challenge or question the VE about standing/walking at the administrative hearing; he submitted competing vocational materials to the Appeals Council instead.
The ALJ partially discounted Talley’s subjective symptom testimony, citing inconsistencies with objective medical evidence, reported improvement on medication, and Talley’s daily activities.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the ALJ’s reliance on the VE was permissible, Talley forfeited the non‑DOT challenge, and the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons to discount testimony.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ could rely on VE whose hypothetical did not explicitly state Talley’s 6‑hour standing/walking limit	ALJ’s hypothetical failed to incorporate Talley’s specific 6‑hour standing/walking limitation, so VE testimony is unreliable	"Light work" term of art includes ~6 hours standing/walking; telling VE to assume light work conveyed that limit	ALJ permissibly relied on VE; "light work" implies the 6‑hour limitation and VE would understand it
Whether VE testimony based on non‑DOT data required challenge at hearing or could be raised later	Talley argued VE relied on non‑DOT sources that conflict with DOT and undermine step‑five finding	Talley forfeited this claim by not raising it at the administrative hearing; counsel must present issues/evidence to ALJ	Forfeited: claimant’s counsel failed to raise the VE/DOT issue at the hearing, so appeal is barred
If not forfeited, whether non‑DOT data undermines substantial‑evidence support for step five	Raw non‑DOT materials submitted to Appeals Council show VE’s testimony contradicted by other data	VE is presumptively familiar with disability law terms; raw data submitted without explanation does not overcome VE’s unchallenged expertise	Even on merits, non‑DOT materials do not defeat substantial evidence; VE testimony stands
Whether ALJ properly discounted claimant’s subjective symptom testimony	Talley contended ALJ failed to give valid reasons to discredit his statements about limitations	ALJ cited conflicts with objective medical records, improvement with meds, and inconsistent daily activities	ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to partially discount Talley’s testimony

Key Cases Cited

Larson v. Saul, 967 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for district court affirmance of SSA denial)
Terry v. Saul, 998 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2021) (terms like "light work" and attendant limitations are well‑established in disability law)
Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2017) (claimants represented by counsel forfeit issues not raised at hearing)
Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (counsel must present all issues and evidence to the ALJ to avoid forfeiture)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (VE testimony is presumptively reliable; party challenging must show it fails substantial‑evidence review)
Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for evaluating ALJ’s adverse credibility findings)
Carmickle v. Commissioner, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may consider inconsistencies between testimony and objective evidence)
Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1995) (Commissioner’s interpretation of evidence entitled to deference)