381 F.Supp.3d 702
W.D. Va.2019Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Ferguson (b. 1983) applied for disability insurance benefits alleging PTSD, anxiety/depression, right shoulder, back, knee, and carpal tunnel problems, with onset July 1, 2013.
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found severe impairments (PTSD, generalized anxiety, right shoulder impingement, carpal tunnel) but not disabling and assessed an RFC for a limited range of light work (restrictions on overhead right reaching, concentrated exposure to hazards, no complex tasks, only simple routine tasks in a low‑stress setting, limited coworker/public interaction).
- ALJ concluded plaintiff could not perform past relevant work but could perform other jobs in the national economy based on vocational expert (VE) testimony (e.g., bakery worker on conveyor line; surveillance system monitor).
- Appeals Council adopted the ALJ decision; plaintiff appealed to district court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- On review, the district court found the ALJ failed to identify or resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) regarding exposure to moving machinery and GED Reasoning Level, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly resolved apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT | Ferguson: VE jobs (bakery conveyor; surveillance monitor) conflict with DOT because bakery involves proximity to moving machinery and surveillance requires Level‑3 reasoning, inconsistent with RFC limits (avoid hazards; simple routine tasks). | Commissioner: ALJ relied on VE testimony to identify available jobs; no need for further inquiry as posed. | Court: Remand. ALJ erred by not identifying/resolving apparent conflicts with the DOT; must obtain explanation or reassess. |
| Whether limitation to "simple, routine" tasks conflicts with DOT Reasoning Level 3 | Ferguson: Level‑3 reasoning (apply commonsense to several variables; diagrammatic instructions) is inconsistent with limitation to simple routine tasks. | Commissioner: VE testimony supports availability of surveillance monitor despite GED level. | Court: There is an apparent conflict; ALJ must address and resolve it on remand. |
| Whether restriction to avoid concentrated exposure to hazards precludes bakery conveyor work | Ferguson: RFC forbids concentrated exposure to moving machinery; DOT bakery conveyor job requires proximity to moving mechanical parts. | Commissioner: VE identified the bakery job anyway. | Court: Apparent conflict exists; ALJ erred in relying on VE without resolving conflict. |
| Whether remand is required when ALJ does not reconcile DOT–VE conflicts | Ferguson: Yes—Pearson/Thomas require ALJ to ask VE about conflicts and independently identify apparent conflicts. | Commissioner: ALJ’s reliance on VE was sufficient here. | Court: Remanded for further administrative development and resolution consistent with governing precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must identify and resolve apparent conflicts between DOT and VE testimony)
- Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019) (ALJ cannot rely unquestioningly on VE; must resolve DOT conflicts and ask VE whether testimony conflicts with DOT)
- Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (limitation to simple repetitive tasks may conflict with DOT Reasoning Level 3)
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005) (similar holding that simple, routine work limitation conflicts with Level‑3 reasoning)