Ronnie Moore, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19838
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ronnie Moore Jr. applied for Supplemental Security Income; ALJ denied benefits at step five after a vocational expert (VE) identified alternative jobs.
- ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, morbid obesity, and anxiety, and limited Moore to only occasional bilateral overhead reaching plus other physical restrictions.
- ALJ posed a hypothetical to the VE reflecting that residual functional capacity (RFC); VE identified janitor (DOT 323.687-014) and cafeteria attendant/clearing tables (DOT 311.677-010) jobs and testified her opinions were consistent with the DOT.
- Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed, finding at least the cafeteria attendant job fit Moore’s RFC so any error was harmless.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT/SCO regarding frequency of reaching (SCO lists both jobs as requiring frequent reaching), and whether the ALJ complied with SSR 00-4p.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ resolved an apparent conflict between VE testimony and the DOT/SCO about reaching frequency | Moore: VE jobs require "frequent" reaching per SCO and thus conflict with RFC limiting overhead reaching to "occasional" | Commissioner: VE testified her opinions were consistent with the DOT; district court: cafeteria attendant fits RFC so any error is harmless | Held: ALJ failed to resolve the apparent conflict; simply asking VE about consistency and receiving "yes" was insufficient; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review and substantial-evidence rule)
- Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Kemp v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must address apparent VE/DOT conflicts; VE "yes" is not enough)
- Welsh v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2014) (VE may resolve conflicts by giving reasonable explanations based on observation or other sources)