Jeffrey Pearson v. Carolyn Colvin
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21953
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Pearson applied for Social Security disability benefits after being laid off, citing multiple physical and mental impairments including shoulder and spinal problems, arthritis, and hearing loss.
- An ALJ denied benefits after two hearings; the Appeals Council remanded for a second hearing that included vocational expert (VE) testimony.
- At the second hearing the ALJ posed a hypothetical RFC limiting Pearson to less-than-full range of unskilled, light work with only occasional overhead reaching with the non-dominant arm; the VE identified three representative jobs (motel cleaner, cashier II, bench press operator) existing in significant numbers.
- The VE did not identify any conflict between his testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT/"Dictionary"), and the ALJ relied on the VE to deny benefits; the Appeals Council and district court affirmed the denial.
- On appeal to the Fourth Circuit Pearson argued the ALJ failed to identify and resolve an apparent conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT regarding the jobs’ reaching requirements (DOT lists "frequent reaching" whereas Pearson had overhead reach limitations).
- The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the ALJ must independently identify and resolve "apparent" conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT before relying on that testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSR 00-4p requires the ALJ only to ask the VE if testimony conflicts with the DOT or also to independently identify conflicts | ALJ must do more than ask VE; must independently identify and resolve all possible conflicts | ALJ’s only affirmative duty is to ask VE whether testimony conflicts; at most identify obvious conflicts | Held: ALJ must independently identify and resolve "apparent" conflicts (i.e., conflicts that seem to exist), not merely ask the VE or only obvious conflicts |
| Whether the ALJ satisfied SSR 00-4p in this case | VE testimony conflicted with DOT because DOT requires "frequent reaching" and Pearson had limited overhead reaching; ALJ failed to elicit explanation | VE testimony that jobs were suitable was sufficient; no conflict because DOT's reaching need not mean frequent bilateral overhead reaching | Held: There was an apparent conflict (DOT’s broad definition of "reaching" could include bilateral overhead reaching). ALJ failed to elicit/resolve an explanation, so VE testimony cannot supply substantial evidence without resolution |
| What standard governs which conflicts must be addressed | ALJ must address all potential/minor wording discrepancies | Only clear/obvious conflicts must be addressed | Held: Standard is "apparent" conflict — where testimony seems to conflict; ALJ must elicit a reasonable explanation and explain resolution |
| What remand remedy is appropriate when SSR 00-4p duties are not fulfilled | Remand for further administrative proceedings to resolve conflict | Affirmance because VE testimony and ALJ findings were adequate | Held: Reverse and remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with SSR 00-4p (ALJ must obtain/assess VE explanation, quantify available positions without the disputed requirement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review "substantial evidence")
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Moore v. Colvin, 769 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2014) (ALJ duty extends beyond asking VE consistency question)
- Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ’s affirmative duty exceeds merely asking VE)
- Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999) (ALJ must elicit reasonable explanation for VE/DOT discrepancies)
- Lindsley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2009) (contrasting view that SSR 00-4p imposes no independent ALJ duty)
- Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2006) (remand where VE and DOT inconsistency not resolved)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (burden shifting at final step of disability analysis)
- Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir. 1986) (ALJ duty to develop record)