Gilbert v. Berryhill, 5:18-cv-00159

Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on November 5, 2013; initial denial and ALJ hearing in 2016; Appeals Council remanded for further consideration in 2017.
After a second hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on March 14, 2018; Appeals Council denied review, making that the Commissioner’s final decision.
ALJ found severe impairments including diabetes with neuropathy, osteoarthritis, OSA, degenerative disc disease, and mild intellectual impairment.
ALJ assessed an RFC for light work with multiple nonexertional limits, and a mental limitation to unskilled work with simple routine tasks and occasional public interaction.
A VE identified representative jobs (marker, non-personal mail clerk, router) that the claimant could perform; ALJ found claimant not disabled at Step Five.
Magistrate recommended denying plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an apparent conflict exists between RFC limiting claimant to "simple routine tasks" and DOT Reasoning Levels for VE-identified jobs	Gilbert argued Reasoning Levels 2 and 3 (jobs identified by the VE) require more reasoning than RFC allows and the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict	Commissioner relied on Fourth Circuit authority equating Level 2 with simple routine tasks and argued no apparent conflict with Level 2; any Level 3 issue is harmless because other non-conflicting jobs exist	Court held no apparent conflict with Level 2 per Lawrence; Level 3 conflict (if any) would be harmless because other adequate jobs existed; ALJ decision supported by substantial evidence
Whether any ALJ error in not addressing a possible DOT conflict required remand	Gilbert sought remand for development/resolution of VE testimony regarding DOT conflict	Commissioner argued controlling precedent forecloses conflict for Level 2 and that Step Five burden was still met	Court applied Lawrence and related precedent: no remand required; Commissioner met burden by identifying at least one suitable job

Lawrence v. Saul, 941 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2019) (no apparent conflict between RFC limiting claimant to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and DOT Reasoning Level 2).
Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2019) (ALJ must ensure apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT are reasonably resolved).
Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (summary of five-step disability evaluation process).
Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2016) (claimant bears burden through first four steps).
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (allocation of burdens at step five).
Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 2006) (standards for judicial review of Commissioner’s decision).
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996) (definition of substantial evidence).
Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2010) (examining meaning of "simple" and "uninvolved" instructions).