Jones v. Apfel

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 may rely on VE testimony as substantial evidence to support a finding of not disabled
• holding the VE testimony constitutes substantial evidence where an ALJ poses a hypothetical question to the VE containing all of the claimant’s impairments
• holding that a VE’s testimony “trumps” the DOT in the case of a conflict because “the DOT ‘is not the sole source of admissible information concerning jobs’” (quoting Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir. 1994))
• explaining that the testimony of a VE trumps the DOT where there is an inconsistency
• explaining that “[t]he DOT itself states that it is not comprehensive” and “the [Social Security Administration] itself does not consider the DOT dispositive”
• explaining that “[t]he DOT itself states that it is not comprehensive” and “the [Social Security Administration] itself does not consider the DOT dispositive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).