Maria Gutierrez v. Carolyn Colvin, 844 F.3d 804

Maria Gutierrez applied for Social Security disability benefits; denied by ALJ and district court affirmed.
Undisputed physical limitations: cannot lift >5 pounds or raise her right arm above shoulder; left arm unimpaired.
At hearing, vocational expert (VE) testified that, despite limitations, Gutierrez could work as a cashier and gave statewide/national job numbers.
The ALJ asked the VE whether his opinion conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT); the VE said it did not, and the ALJ relied on that testimony to deny benefits at step five.
Gutierrez argued on appeal the DOT’s listing of frequent "reaching" for cashiers creates an apparent conflict because she cannot reach overhead with her right arm; she contends the ALJ should have elicited further VE clarification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ had duty to elicit further vocational-expert explanation of an apparent conflict between VE testimony and DOT’s "frequent reaching" for cashiers	Gutierrez: DOT’s "frequent reaching" implies overhead reaching; given her right-arm overhead restriction, ALJ should have asked follow-up questions	Colvin/ALJ: DOT describes occupations broadly; not every DOT "reaching" requirement implies overhead reaching for every cashier job; VE’s testimony and experience resolved job-specific requirements	Held: No reversible error. No obvious or apparent conflict existed because overhead reaching is not an essential or typical task for most cashier jobs; ALJ permissibly relied on VE testimony without further questioning.

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1999) (describes five-step sequential evaluation for disability)
Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review: ALJ factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standard applied)
Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may rely on vocational expert testimony at step five)