Igor Zavalin v. Carolyn W. Colvin
778 F.3d 842
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Igor Zavalin, who has cerebral palsy, a learning disorder, speech impairment, and right-leg atrophy, received SSI from childhood; at age 18 SSA redetermined his adult eligibility.
- An ALJ found Zavalin’s severe impairments but concluded he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) for "simple, routine, or repetitive" work.
- At the Step Five vocational analysis the ALJ relied on a vocational expert who identified two DOT jobs (cashier and surveillance system monitor) that exist in substantial numbers and that the expert said Zavalin could perform.
- Both identified DOT jobs require Level 3 Reasoning (ability to deal with several concrete variables and follow written/oral/diagrammatic instructions), but the ALJ did not reconcile how Level 3 Reasoning fits with Zavalin’s RFC limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether there was an apparent conflict and whether the ALJ’s failure to resolve it was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an apparent conflict exists between an RFC limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and DOT Level 3 Reasoning | Limitation to simple, routine, repetitive work is inconsistent with Level 3 Reasoning requirements | DOT reasoning levels correlate to education; Zavalin completed high school, so Level 3 is consistent | The Ninth Circuit held there is an apparent conflict and the ALJ erred by not reconciling it |
| Whether the ALJ’s failure to reconcile the conflict was harmless | Record does not clearly show Zavalin has the reasoning ability for the jobs; error not harmless | Commissioner points to Zavalin’s school math success and computer/video-game use as evidence of ability | The court held the error was not harmless on the mixed record and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must reconcile apparent conflicts between vocational expert testimony and the DOT)
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding limitation to simple, routine tasks inconsistent with Level 3 Reasoning)
- Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (harmless error standard for ALJ legal errors)
- Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006) (court constrained to review only reasons ALJ relied on)
- Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2004) (remand for further proceedings following reversible error)