Hyacinth Rasmussen v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 21-35468

Hyacinth Rasmussen applied for disability-insurance benefits and SSI; the ALJ denied benefits at step five after consulting a vocational expert (VE).
The ALJ found Rasmussen’s RFC limited her to "simple, routine, repetitive one- to three-step tasks" with occasional superficial public/coworker contact.
The VE testified Rasmussen could perform several jobs in the national economy, including Document Preparer (DOT Reasoning Level 3).
Rasmussen argued an "apparent conflict" existed between her RFC and the DOT Reasoning Level 3 requirement for Document Preparer, and that the ALJ failed to resolve the conflict as required.
Rasmussen also sought to submit rebuttal evidence challenging the VE’s job-number estimates; the agency declined to consider that evidence.
The Ninth Circuit majority vacated and remanded: it found the ALJ erred by not reconciling the apparent RFC–DOT conflict and the agency’s refusal to consider rebuttal evidence was not harmless given the potentially low job numbers; Judge Christen partially dissented on the apparent-conflict finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an apparent conflict existed between Rasmussen’s RFC (simple, routine, repetitive one- to three-step tasks) and the DOT Reasoning Level 3 for Document Preparer	RFC limits Rasmussen to simple/low-complexity tasks, which conflicts with Level 3 Reasoning; ALJ had to identify and reconcile the conflict	RFC allowing up to three-step tasks accommodates Level 3 Reasoning; no obvious or apparent conflict requiring reconciliation	Majority: There was an apparent conflict and the ALJ erred by not reconciling it; Christen, J., dissented on this point.
Whether the agency improperly refused to consider Rasmussen’s rebuttal evidence attacking the VE’s job-number estimates and whether any error was harmless	Rasmussen preserved the job-number issue by asking the VE for data/sources and submitted evidence showing substantially different job numbers from the VE’s source	Commissioner relied on VE testimony and argued any error was harmless because sufficient jobs remained	Court: Agency’s refusal to consider rebuttal evidence was legal error and not harmless because excluding Document Preparer plus Rasmussen’s numbers could leave too few national jobs, warranting remand.

Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must reconcile apparent conflicts between a VE’s testimony and the DOT)
Rounds v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 807 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (one- to two-step RFC contrasted with higher DOT reasoning level creates an apparent conflict)
Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2018) (claimant may present rebuttal evidence about VE job numbers to the appeals council if preserved)
Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussion of what constitutes a "significant number" of jobs; 25,000 was a close call)
Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review: legal error or lack of substantial evidence)
Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial-evidence standard)
Lamear v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ may rely on VE and DOT at step five)
Brewes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (appeals-council review may consider new evidence that relates to the period on or before the ALJ decision)