Vickie Kemp v. Carolyn Colvin
743 F.3d 630
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Charles Kemp applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI; ALJ found him not disabled based on VE testimony identifying DOT job #737.687-026 (Check Weigher). Kemp later died; his spouse Vickie sought review and appealed the denial.
- Medical records showed bilateral shoulder pain with decreased forward elevation (150° to 120°) and a reviewing consultant limited him to occasional overhead reaching and light/sedentary work with other postural limits.
- At the hearing the ALJ instructed the VE to identify jobs consistent with the DOT/SCO and to explain any apparent unresolved conflicts between VE testimony and those sources.
- The ALJ’s hypothetical limited the claimant to occasional overhead reaching; the VE nonetheless identified the check-weigher job (DOT #737.687-026) which the DOT/SCO lists as requiring constant reaching.
- The ALJ concluded the VE’s testimony was consistent with the DOT, relied on it at step five to find Kemp not disabled, and the Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed.
- The court of appeals questioned whether an unresolved conflict existed between the VE testimony and the DOT regarding reaching and remanded because the record did not show the conflict was identified and resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VE testimony conflicted with the DOT/SCO on reaching requirements | Vickie: VE’s identification of check-weigher conflicts with DOT because claimant limited to occasional overhead reaching but DOT lists constant reaching | Commissioner: VE testimony was consistent with DOT and properly supports ALJ’s step-five finding | Remanded — court found the record does not show whether an apparent conflict was identified or resolved; remand required for clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must reconcile apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT/SCO under SSR 00-4p)
- Porch v. Chater, 115 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 1997) (VE testimony that conflicts with unrebutted DOT classifications cannot constitute substantial evidence of other jobs)
- Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 1995) (ALJ/VE must ensure identified jobs match claimant’s limitations; unexplained DOT conflicts undermine step-five findings)