Frank v. Lopez

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Commissioner must “‘obtain a reasonable explanation’ for any ‘apparent’—even if non-obvious—conflict between the Dictionary and a vocational expert’s testimony.”
• holding that ALJs have a duty to identify and inquire into all “apparent” conflicts—even if “non-obvious”—between a vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT
• holding that “reaching” in the SCO includes overhead reaching, including because of a “Social Security Program Policy Statement defin[ing] ‘reaching’ as ‘extending the hands and arms in any direction[.]’” (citing SSR 85-15, 1985 WL 56857, at (Jan. 1, 1985))
• finding that SSR 00-4p still “governs the Commissioner’s assessment of whether any particular job can accommodate a given claimant’s physical limitations”
• explaining that the ALJ must “undertake a meaningful investigatory effort” in identifying and resolving apparent conflicts
• stating that it is “the Commissioner’s duty to identify, explain and resolve apparent conflicts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).