Richard Welsh v. Carolyn Colvin
765 F.3d 926
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Welsh applied for Social Security disability and supplemental security income benefits; the initial ALJ denied based on RFC to sedentary work with limitations; remand occurred due to VE/Testimony inconsistencies with DOT; on remand a second ALJ found Welsh could perform sedentary work as a surveillance systems monitor and a call out operator; VE testified these jobs exist in significant numbers and were consistent with DOT; SSA Appeals Council denied, district court affirmed, Welsh appeals; court reviews for substantial evidence and upholds if supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSR 96-9p applicability on erosion of sedentary base | Welsh argues remand required explicit SSR 96-9p analysis | ALJ's approach relied on VE and is sufficient | Not reversible; no practical effect on decision. |
| Conflict between VE testimony and DOT descriptions | ALJ failed to elicit adequate explanation per SSR 00-4p | VE explained consistency; DOT treated as generic max requirements | ALJ complied; substantial evidence supports reliance on VE. |
| Sufficiency of job numbers to meet significant population threshold | Some Iowa jobs not available to Welsh; part-time vs full-time issue | VE cross-examined; numbers adequate for availability under RFC | Substantial evidence supports finding of significant jobs. |
| Reliance on VE testimony over DOT and Hillier framework | Argues general limitations conflict with DOT requirements | ER provided consistent explanation; SSR 00-4p satisfied | ALJ properly credited VE under SSR 00-4p. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renfrow v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard governs when VE testimony is credited)
- Wheeler v. Apfel, 224 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2000) (DOT is generic; not all positional requirements must be reflected in every case)
- Hillier v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 486 F.3d 359 (8th Cir. 2007) (addresses consistency between VE testimony and DOT descriptions)
- Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirms reliance on VE testimony where hypotheticals match RFC and conflicts explained)
- Dipple v. Astrue, 601 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2010) (VE not required to quantify part-time vs full-time beyond readily available data)
- Kemp v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2014) (SSR 00-4p requires inquiry into VE-DOT consistency)
- Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 1996) (remanent considerations of vocational evidence without prejudicial error)