Robert M. Haddock v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, 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.

• noting that job information can come from the DOT, government sources, or other reliable publications
• holding that “the ALJ must investigate and elicit a reasonable explanation for any conflict between the [DOT] and expert testimony before the ALJ may rely on the expert’s testimony as substantial evidence to support a determination of nondisability”
• explaining that “the ALJ may rely on the [VE’s] testimony as substantial evidence to support a determination of nondisability” absent a conflict between the DOT and the VE’s testimony
• explaining that a “valid explanation” by a VE for a conflict with the DOT is “that a specified number or percentage of a particular job is performed at a lower RFC level than the [DOT] shows the job generally to require”
• requiring an ALJ to elicit additional testimony from a vocational expert if the vocational expert’s testimony conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational titles
• requiring Plaintiff to cross-examine the vocational expert would improperly “shift the burden to the claimant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).