Lindell Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security
906 F.3d 1353
11th Cir.2018Background
- Lindell Washington filed for Social Security disability benefits based on diabetic neuropathy, vision impairment, obesity, and alcohol history; initial denials led to an ALJ hearing.
- At the hearing the ALJ posed hypotheticals to a Vocational Expert (VE); the VE first said no jobs if claimant could not do fine manipulation, but then identified two jobs (table worker and bagger) if the claimant could do only "occasional fingering."
- The ALJ asked the VE whether his testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT); the VE said it was, and the ALJ relied on that testimony to deny benefits, stating compliance with SSR 00-4p without further explanation.
- The DOT entries for both identified jobs list "Fingering: Frequently," a clear contradiction with the VE’s identification of the jobs as compatible with only "occasional fingering."
- Washington challenged the decision for failure to identify, explain, and resolve the apparent VE–DOT conflict under SSA Ruling SSR 00-4p; the district court upheld the ALJ, and Washington appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that SSR 00-4p imposes an affirmative ALJ duty to identify apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT, obtain reasonable explanations, and explain resolution in the decision; the ALJ failed to do so and the case was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSR 00-4p requires the ALJ to independently identify and resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT | Washington: SSR 00-4p imposes an affirmative duty on ALJs to identify apparent conflicts, obtain reasonable explanations, and explain resolution in the decision | Commissioner: ALJ satisfied SSR 00-4p by asking the VE if his testimony was consistent with the DOT and accepting the VE’s answer | Held: SSR 00-4p requires ALJs to identify apparent conflicts, ask about them, obtain reasonable explanations, and explain resolution; merely asking the VE is insufficient |
| Whether the VE testimony conflicted with the DOT in an "apparent" way that required ALJ inquiry | Washington: VE said jobs possible with only occasional fingering, but DOT requires frequent fingering — an obvious, material conflict | Commissioner: VE testimony should be credited when consistent with ALJ's finding; asking the VE sufficed | Held: The VE–DOT inconsistency was an apparent and material conflict; ALJ breached duty by failing to identify and resolve it |
| Whether the ALJ’s failure was harmless | Washington: VE’s explanation was minimal; absence of resolution prejudiced the claim | Commissioner: No harmful error because VE said his testimony was consistent and ALJ relied on that | Held: Error was not harmless; record lacked adequate explanation to support denial |
| Standard of review and effect of SSR 00-4p | Washington: SSR 00-4p binds SSA components and requires adherence because it affects claimants’ substantive rights | Commissioner: Prior case law (Jones) allowed reliance on VE testimony over DOT | Held: Court interprets SSR 00-4p as imposing enhanced procedural duties; Jones does not excuse noncompliance with SSR 00-4p |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (importance of "substantial evidence" standard in SSA adjudications)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (plurality) (SSA hearings are inquisitorial; ALJ duty to develop the record)
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (Social Security Act is protective of claimants)
- Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (prior panel allowed ALJ to rely on VE testimony; background to SSR 00-4p relationship)
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must resolve VE–DOT conflicts under SSR 00-4p)
- Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must inquire when VE evidence appears to conflict with DOT)
- Moore v. Colvin, 769 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2014) (treating VE–DOT conflicts as requiring ALJ inquiry)
- Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2015) (SSR 00-4p places multiple responsibilities on ALJ to identify and resolve conflicts)
- Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2009) (error harmless only if no actual conflict)