Commonwealth v. Gary, R.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the failure to address a specific piece of evidence does not mean the court did not consider it
• concluding that it was not sufficient for the VE to have generally considered the claimant's limitations, age, education, and past work experience in concluding that a claimant could perform a job when the claimant’s limitations conflicted with the job requirements listed in the DOT
• establishing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the DOT
• ALJ could not rely on the VE’s testimony where the VE indicated that the claimant could be employed in DOT’s positions which conflicted with the claimant’s limitations and the VE failed to testify that the “job traits of the positions varied from the way the DOT described them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).