Jeffrey Pearson v. Carolyn Colvin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the ALJ must independently identify apparent conflicts even when the VE fails to do so
• holding that it is “not enough that some positions exist” that accommodate the claimant’s limitations, the “vocational expert must testify to how many of these positions” allow for the limitation
• holding that if an expert’s testimony 12 apparently conflicts with the DOT, the expert’s testimony can only provide substantial evidence to support the ALy’s decision if the ALJ received an explanation from the expert explaining the conflict and determined both (1
• explaining that a conflict is “apparent” when a vocational expert’s testimony “seems to, but does not necessarily, conflict with” the DOT
• finding that the ALJ may rely on the DOT and VE testimony consistent with the DOT
• explaining that a conflict is “apparent” when a vocational expert’s testimony “seems to, but does not necessarily, conflict with” the DOT

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).