Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The plaintiff, Jennifer Solis, applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits in May 2020, alleging disability beginning August 14, 2019. After a December 2023 hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a partially favorable decision: she was found disabled as of October 1, 2021, but not disabled during the earlier closed period from August 14, 2019 to September 30, 2021. She sought judicial review of the partial denial covering the closed period.
At the disability hearing, the ALJ used a vocational expert (VE) to identify jobs the plaintiff could still perform with her residual functional capacity, which limited her to simple and repetitive tasks. The VE testified that the plaintiff could work as a document preparer and several other jobs. Under Social Security’s Step 5 analysis — where the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the claimant can perform other work in the national economy — the ALJ relied on the VE’s testimony.
A long-running issue in Ninth Circuit Social Security cases is the conflict between a residual functional capacity limited to ‘simple, repetitive tasks’ and jobs classified by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) as requiring Reasoning Level 3. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Zavalin v. Colvin (2015) holds that there is an apparent conflict between simple-and-repetitive limitations and Level 3 reasoning jobs, and the ALJ must elicit and explain a reasonable resolution from the VE.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding for further proceedings. The dispositive issue was the VE’s failure to adequately resolve the conflict between the plaintiff’s simple-and-repetitive-task limitation and the document preparer job’s Level 3 reasoning classification under the DOT.
When asked at the hearing whether the document preparer job is ‘performed consistently with’ the DOT description that includes a Level 3 reasoning level, the VE responded that ‘I don’t quite see the level being completely accurate’ and noted that ‘we’ve quibbled over the reasoning levels 2 versus 3 for some time in the Agency here.’ The court found this answer inadequate. The VE never explained what reasoning skills the cited jobs actually require or why those skills are less demanding than the DOT’s Level 3 classification. The court emphasized that simply asserting the DOT ‘isn’t completely accurate,’ without an evidence-based explanation, fails to satisfy the ALJ’s obligation under Zavalin.
The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the conflict had been resolved, noting that Zavalin requires more than a generalized disagreement with the DOT — it requires a substantive explanation that the court can evaluate. Because substantial evidence did not support the Step 5 finding, the court recommended remand for the ALJ to conduct a new hearing and elicit a proper resolution of the DOT conflict (or identify other jobs not affected by the conflict). The court declined to award benefits outright, applying the standard rule that remand for further proceedings is the proper remedy.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit’s Zavalin v. Colvin decision continues to require ALJs and vocational experts to provide substantive, evidence-based explanations for any apparent conflict between RFC limitations and DOT job classifications.
- A vocational expert’s mere disagreement with the DOT’s reasoning level — without explaining what skills the job actually requires and why they fall below the listed level — does not satisfy the conflict-resolution requirement.
- Limitations to ‘simple, repetitive tasks’ present an apparent conflict with DOT Level 3 reasoning jobs that the ALJ must address on the record.
- Step 5 remands for further development of the vocational testimony are common where the VE’s answers about DOT conflicts are conclusory.
- Even where part of an ALJ’s decision is favorable to the claimant, judicial review can lead to remand of the unfavorable portion where the Step 5 analysis is flawed.
Why It Matters
For California disability claimants and their representatives, this opinion is a useful template for attacking ALJ decisions that rely on vocational expert testimony at Step 5. Cases involving the document preparer job and other DOT Level 3 jobs are especially common targets for Zavalin challenges, and a VE’s vague gestures toward ‘how the job is actually performed’ will not survive judicial review.
For the Social Security Administration, the decision is a reminder that ALJs must elicit explicit, substantive answers from vocational experts about apparent DOT conflicts. The shortcuts that may have worked at the agency level often will not survive substantial-evidence review in federal court.