{"id":427,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=427"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"shawn-michael-h-bisignano-cd-cal-reverses-vocational-expert-dot-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=427","title":{"rendered":"Shawn Michael H. v. Bisignano \u2014 C.D. Cal. Reverses Social Security Denial Where Vocational Expert Failed to Resolve DOT Conflict on Walking and Standing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Shawn Michael H. v. Bisignano<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-01866<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Social Security disability appeal; vocational expert testimony; Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) conflict; SSR 00-4p; light work walking\/standing requirements<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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 \u2014 all classified as “light” work in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n