Vickie Kemp 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, where the record does not reflect whether the vocational expert or ALJ even recognized a possible conflict between the ALJ’s hypothetical and the DOT listing, the case should be remanded for further 12 proceedings
• holding 1 that, where the record does not reflect whether the vocational expert or ALJ even recognized a possible conflict between the ALJ’s hypothetical 2 and the DOT listing, the case should be remanded for further proceedings
• reversing where the record lacked any indication that the ALJ and VE recognized a conflict between the hypothetical and the DOT listing
• remanding where “the record d[id] not reflect whether the VE or the ALJ even recognized the possible conflict”
• finding a conflict between DOT job listing requiring constant reaching and RFC limitation that claimant could reach overhead only occasionally
• reversing for failure to resolve apparent conflict where the claimant had an “occasional overhead reaching” limitation in both arms but occupations required “constant reaching”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).