Ronnie Moore, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin

How courts have described this case

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

• providing that an ALJ “is not absolved of this duty merely because the VE responds ‘yes’ when asked if her testimony is consistent with the DOT”
• explaining that, if Commissioner relies only on VE testimony at fifth step, and when an unresolved apparent conflict exists between that testimony and the DOT, then Commissioner has not met her burden of proof
• reversing where the ALJ relied on VE testimony resolving this apparent conflict between a bilateral overhead-reach limitation and jobs requiring frequent reaching per the DOT
• vocational expert must offer an explanation for any inconsistencies between her testimony and the DOT, which the ALJ may accept as reasonable after evaluation
• the ALJ has a duty to resolve any conflict between the VE’s testimony and the RFC, and the failure to do so precludes the ALJ from relying on the VE’s testimony to find a plaintiff not disabled

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).