Marotti-Roxbury v. Colvin
2:13-cv-01385
E.D. Wis.Aug 19, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Roxbury seeks disability benefits; ALJ found she could perform light work with certain hand and concentration limits.
- VE testimony conflicted with DOT/SCO data; ALJ did not adequately reconcile the conflict or provide data supporting his clustering method.
- District and Appeals Council remanded previously for VE-DOT inconsistencies and consideration of state-agency opinions.
- Hearing before ALJ Malloy (Wisconsin) addressed VE data, plaintiff’s mental and physical impairments, and credibility.
- ALJ Malloy ultimately relied on VE testimony and Wisconsin consults to limit plaintiff to unskilled or low-level tasks; decision reversed on appeal.
- Court remands for new step-five determination with reliable vocational evidence and reconsideration of manipulative and mental limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| VE testimony conflict with DOT | Roxbury; VE data unreliable | Colvin; VE data acceptable | Remand for reliable vocational evidence |
| Evaluation of medical evidence and Dr. Johnston/Shields | Malloy erred in ignoring Johnston; Shields unreliable | Kingrey/Malloy; reflected substantial evidence | Remand for reconsideration of medical opinions |
| Need for data underlying VE conclusions on demand | Data must be available on demand | Data notionally sufficient | Remand for proper data disclosure and re-evaluation of VE methodology |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherbee v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2011) (VE reliability and DOT consistency essential)
- Barrett v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2004) (VE testimony may suffice but must adhere to DOT/SCO)
- Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2002) (VE data and credibility must be scrutinized)