Eshagh Massachi v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 6 when the Appeals Council vacates an ALJ’s original decision, “the ALJ’s original finding 7 no longer exist[s].”
• holding that an 14 ALJ may not rely on a VE’s testimony regarding the requirements of a particular job 15 without first inquiring whether the testimony conflicts with the DOT
• stating that “we cannot determine whether the ALJ properly relied on [the vocational expert’s] testimony” due to unresolved occupational evidence
• holding that in light of SSR 00-4p, 19 an ALJ may not rely on a VE testimony regarding the requirements of a particular job without 20 first inquiring whether the testimony conflicts with the DOT
• holding that if a conflict exists, “the ALJ must then determine whether the vocational expert’s explanation for the conflict is reasonable and whether a basis exists for relying on the expert rather than the [DOT]”
• holding that an ALJ may not rely on a VE's testimony regarding the requirements of a particular job without first inquiring whether the testimony conflicts with the DOT and obtaining a reasonable explanation for any apparent conflict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).