Reported / Citable
Background
Johnny R. J. sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. An administrative law judge found that he could perform medium work subject to several restrictions, including only occasional overhead reaching with his right arm, a moderate-noise environment or hearing protection, and no requirement for constant head movement.
At step five of the disability analysis, the ALJ relied on a vocational expert’s testimony that Johnny could work as a hospital cleaner, kitchen helper, or hand packager. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles, however, describes all three jobs as requiring frequent reaching. The ALJ did not ask the expert to explain whether Johnny could perform those jobs despite his restriction to occasional right-arm overhead reaching.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan recommended granting Johnny’s summary-judgment motion, denying the Commissioner’s motion, and remanding the case for further proceedings. She concluded that the ALJ’s step-five determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the record contained no vocational-expert testimony resolving the apparent conflict between Johnny’s reaching limitation and the frequent-reaching requirements of the identified jobs.
The court also rejected the Commissioner’s argument that Johnny waived the issue by failing to question the vocational expert at the hearing. SSR 00-4P places the responsibility on the ALJ to identify and obtain a reasonable explanation for an apparent conflict. Treating the issue as waived when neither the ALJ nor the expert recognized or addressed it would improperly shift the Commissioner’s step-five burden to the claimant. Because the missing vocational evidence could not be supplied by the court, the error was not harmless. The court did not separately decide Johnny’s arguments concerning noise levels and head movement.
Key Takeaways
- An ALJ must obtain a reasonable explanation for an apparent conflict between vocational-expert testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles before relying on that testimony at step five.
- A general assurance that testimony is consistent with the DOT does not resolve a specific discrepancy between an RFC restriction and a job requirement.
- A claimant does not waive an apparent conflict merely by failing to raise it during the hearing when the ALJ and vocational expert never identified or addressed it.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that the Commissioner must support a step-five finding with vocational evidence addressing the claimant’s actual limitations. Courts cannot infer how an occupational requirement applies or supply testimony that the vocational expert never gave.
For practitioners, the decision distinguishes cases in which an expert expressly confirms that a claimant can perform identified jobs despite a reaching restriction from cases in which the conflict remains unexplained. Only the former may provide substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s reliance on the expert.