Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Shawn Michael H. sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of his disability benefits application. The Administrative Law Judge had relied on vocational-expert (VE) testimony to identify alternative jobs the plaintiff could perform despite his impairments. However, the alternative jobs identified — all classified as “light” work in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) — could require up to six hours of walking or standing in an eight-hour workday under the DOT’s definition. The plaintiff’s residual functional capacity restricted him to less than that.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded for further administrative proceedings. Under SSR 00-4p, when there is an apparent conflict between vocational-expert testimony and the DOT, the ALJ must obtain a reasonable explanation from the VE before relying on the testimony. Here, the VE identified only testimony about climbing and time-off-task as testimony that deviated from the DOT and based on his experience — the VE did not explain how the alternative jobs could be performed despite the plaintiff’s walking and standing restrictions, even though the DOT’s definition of “light work” potentially required up to six hours of walking or standing.
The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that “not all light jobs require six hours of walking or standing.” While that may be true in fact, the DOT does not distinguish among individual light jobs on this point — meaning the VE was required to specifically explain how someone unable to walk or stand for six hours could perform the particular jobs identified. Without that explanation, the court could not determine whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s step-five finding (citing Melissa B.). Reversal and remand were warranted for further development.
Key Takeaways
- Under SSR 00-4p, an ALJ must obtain a reasonable explanation from the vocational expert when VE testimony apparently conflicts with the DOT.
- The DOT’s definition of “light work” can include up to six hours of walking or standing, so any RFC restricting the claimant to less requires VE explanation of how the identified jobs can still be performed.
- A VE’s general acknowledgment that some testimony deviates from the DOT (e.g., on climbing or off-task time) does not satisfy the explanation requirement for unaddressed conflicts.
- The Commissioner cannot defend an ALJ decision on appeal by pointing to facts (e.g., that not all light jobs require six hours of walking/standing) that were not explained by the VE on the record.
- An unresolved DOT conflict at step five undermines the substantial-evidence support for the ALJ’s vocational findings, requiring remand.
Why It Matters
This decision is a useful reminder for both Social Security claimants’ counsel and ALJs about the specificity required when relying on VE testimony to identify alternative jobs. Generic acknowledgments of DOT deviation do not satisfy SSR 00-4p; the VE must specifically address how the claimant’s actual functional limitations are compatible with the DOT’s described requirements for the particular jobs identified.
For claimants’ counsel, look closely at the VE testimony on appeal: any walking, standing, lifting, or other physical limitation that conflicts with DOT requirements for the identified jobs creates an opportunity for remand if the VE’s explanation is missing or inadequate.