Auger v. Astrue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “no conflict existed between the VE’s testimony that [plaintiff] could work as a surveillance system monitor despite being limited to ‘simple and unskilled’ work, and the DOT’s level-three classification.”
• no conflict between the VE’s testimony regarding claimant’s ability to perform a job limited to “simple and unskilled” work and the DOT’s level 8 classification
• “the occupational evidence provided by a VE ‘generally should be consistent with the occupational information supplied by the DOT.’” (citing SSR 00–4p, 2000 WL 1898704, at )
• where conflict is obvious, ALJ must address it before rendering a decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).