Thomas v. Astrue
5:12-cv-00595
W.D. Okla.Jan 7, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Steven Ray Thomas seeks disability benefits; SSA relied on VE testimony to deny claim for three jobs.
- ALJ did not explain DOT consistency or identify DOT job codes; Court cannot determine if VE testimony conflicted with DOT.
- VE testimony stated Thomas could work as machine operator, assembly worker, and order clerk but gave no DOT references.
- Court recognizes need to compare VE testimony with DOT; lacking DOT entries, reversal and remand are appropriate.
- RFC found Thomas could perform sedentary work with occasional overhead reaching and superficial public interaction.
- Remand is recommended to obtain proper DOT-VE alignment; the request for immediate benefits is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ALJ err by relying on VE testimony without DOT entries? | Thomas | Thomas | Remand required for DOT-VE comparison |
| Is there an inconsistency between VE testimony and the DOT for machine operator/assembly worker? | Thomas | Thomas | Remand required to identify applicable DOT entries |
| Can order-clerk jobs reconcile with Thomas's sedentary limitation given DOT distinctions? | Thomas | Thomas | Remand required due to inability to compare DOT entries |
| Should the court remand for further findings rather than award benefits? | Thomas | Thomas | Remand with further findings rather than benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2009) (court requires explicit DOT-VE alignment when VE testimony conflicts with DOT)
- Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1999) (requires explanation of how jobs exist in the economy when relying on testimony)
- Segovia v. Astrue, 226 F. App’x 801 (10th Cir. 2007) (illustrates difficulty when DOT entries are numerous and identification is required)
- Taylor v. Chater, 118 F.3d 1274 (8th Cir. 1997) (remand is normal when the record lacks adequate vocational analysis)