Griselda Farias v. Michael Astrue
519 F. App'x 439
9th Cir.2013Background
- Farias appeals a district court decision upholding the SSA denial of DIB and SSI benefits.
- The panel vacates the district court’s order and remands for further proceedings.
- The ALJ failed to inquire whether the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the DOT as required by SSR 00-4p.
- The conflicts concerned ticket taker (DOT 344.667-010) and copy messenger (DOT 239.677-010) regarding handling vs fingering.
- VE testified hostess (DOT 349.667-014) with employment numbers that the court found inconsistent with DOT definitions and BLS data.
- The court concluded the record did not show substantial evidence supporting the hostess employment numbers for Farias’ characteristics and RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ err by not inquiring about VE-DOT conflicts? | Farias contends conflicts existed for ticket taker and copy messenger with DOT. | Commissioner argues VE testimony can stand if substantial evidence otherwise supports the decision. | Remand for further consideration of the conflicts. |
| Are VE employment numbers for hostess substantial evidence? | VE data misrepresents the true job numbers; hostess numbers are inconsistent with DOT and BLS. | VE testimony reflects available job numbers for hostess categories relevant to RFC. | Not substantial; remand to determine correct job types and counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (requires resolve VE-DOT conflicts under SSR 00-4p)
- Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard for disability determinations)