Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10770/USCOURTS-ca11-24-10770-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10770

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARIBEL PEREZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-21513-BB

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 1 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10770

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Maribel Perez appeals the district court’s order affirming the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. She argues that there was an apparent 

conflict between expert testimony offered by the vocational expert 

at a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and information included in the Dictionary of Occupation Titles (“DOT”), 

an authoritative Department of Labor publication. Because the ALJ 

failed to resolve this apparent conflict, Perez says, substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s decision. After careful consideration, we agree. We thus reverse the judgment of the district court 

and remand with instructions for the district court to remand to 

the Commissioner.

I.

Perez applied for disability insurance benefits, claiming that 

she was unable to work due to the following conditions: rheumatoid arthritis, herniated and bulging discs in her spine, chronic inflammation and pain, and depression. After the Commissioner denied her application initially and upon reconsideration, she received a hearing before an ALJ. 

At the hearing, Perez testified and offered documentary evidence about the limitations she faced because of her impairments. 

Having previously worked in event planning, as a real estate agent, 

and as a general contractor, she testified that she could no longer 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 2 of 12
24-10770 Opinion of the Court 3

work because of her health. She explained that she experienced frequent pain, had difficulty walking, and could not stand for long. 

At the hearing, the ALJ also heard testimony from a vocational expert, Mark Capps. The ALJ asked Capps whether a hypothetical person who retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work, except that she could stand or walk for only four 

hours a day and had certain other exertional limitations, would be 

able to perform Perez’s past work. Capps testified that this hypothetical person would not be able to perform Perez’s past work because these jobs required a person to spend more time on her feet 

than was permitted under the hypothetical. 

The ALJ then asked Capps whether the same hypothetical 

person would be able to perform any other jobs in the national 

economy. Capps answered that this person would be able to perform the following jobs: (1) warehouse checker, (2) assembler for 

small products, and (3) inspector and hand packer. He explained 

that the DOT classified each position as light work. He offered no 

other testimony about the jobs, such as the amount of time a person performing each job would be required to stand or walk. He 

stated that his opinions were based on the DOT as well as his field 

experience as a vocational rehabilitation counselor. 

After the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision applying the Social Security Administration’s five-step sequential evaluation 

framework and determined that Perez was not disabled. At the 

first step, the ALJ found that Perez had not been engaged in substantial gainful activity during the relevant time. At the second 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 3 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10770

step, he determined that she suffered from several severe impairments including inflammatory arthritis. At the third step, he concluded that she did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment. 

The ALJ then assessed Perez’s residual functional capacity. 

He concluded that she was able to perform light work with certain 

exertional limitations. Under Social Security regulations, a job may 

qualify as “light work” for several reasons, including if it involves a 

“good deal of walking or standing.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). According to the Social Security Administration, “the full range of light 

work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday.” SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, 

at *6 (Jan. 1, 1983). The ALJ concluded that Perez was limited to 

light work that required her to stand or walk for no more than four 

hours in an eight-hour workday. At step four, after considering the 

vocational expert’s testimony, the ALJ concluded that Perez was 

unable to perform her past relevant work. 

At step five, he considered whether given Perez’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there 

were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform. He explained that if she had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of light work, she 

would not be deemed disabled. But he acknowledged that she had 

additional limitations. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 4 of 12
24-10770 Opinion of the Court 5

The ALJ then looked to the vocational expert’s testimony to 

determine whether, given these additional limitations, there were

jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy 

that Perez could perform. He concluded that she was able to perform the positions of (1) warehouse checker, (2) small products assembler, and (3) inspector and hand packager. He noted that each 

of these positions involved light work. He did not identify any actual or apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony 

and the DOT listings for these positions. To the contrary, he concluded that the vocational expert’s testimony was consistent with 

the DOT. Because there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Perez could perform, the ALJ 

concluded that she was not disabled.1

Perez filed an action in district court challenging the Commissioner’s decision denying her benefits. She argued that there 

was an apparent conflict between the vocational expert’stestimony 

and the DOT. Because the ALJ failed to resolve this apparent conflict, substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s decision. 

The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. It

concluded that there was no apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT. This is Perez’s appeal. 

II.

1 Perez sought review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council, which 

denied review. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 5 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10770

We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine 

whether it is supported by substantial evidence, but we review de 

novo the legal principles upon which the decision is based. Moore v. 

Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence 

refers to “such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id.

III.

A disabled individual may be eligible for disability insurance 

benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). To determine whether a claimant is 

disabled, an ALJ applies a five-step sequential evaluation process. 

“The first three steps deal with whether the claimant is currently 

engaged in ‘substantial gainful activity,’ the ‘medical severity of the 

[claimant’s] impairment(s),’ and whether the impairments meet 

the requirements of a listed impairment.” Washington v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.920(a)(4)). If a claimant fails to establish that she is disabled at 

the third step, the ALJ proceeds to step four and considers the 

claimant’s “residual functional capacity” to determine whether she 

can still perform her “past relevant work.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv)). “Residual functional capacity” refers to the 

most a claimant can still do despite her limitations. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.945(a)(1). When assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ considers her “ability to meet the physical, mental, 

sensory, and other requirements of work.” Id. § 416.945(a)(4). 

If a claimant establishes at step four that she has an impairment that prevents her from doing the kind of work she performed 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 6 of 12
24-10770 Opinion of the Court 7

in the past, then the ALJ continues to step five. Washington, 906 F.3d 

at 1359. At this step, the burden shifts to the Social Security Administration “to show the existence of other jobs in the national economy which, given the claimant’s impairments, the claimant can 

perform.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

At step five, an ALJ may consider data drawn from the DOT 

as well as the testimony of a vocational expert.2 See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.966(d)(1), (e). The DOT, which is compiled by the Department of Labor, “is an extensive compendium of data about the various jobs that exist in the United States economy.” Washington, 

906 F.3d at 1357 n.2. It “includes information about the nature of 

each type of job and what skills or abilities [each type of job] require[s].”3 Id. A vocational expert is a “vocational professional[]”

2 At step five, an ALJ also may look to the Medical Vocational Guidelines, 

known as the grids. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004), 

superseded on other grounds by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. The grids, which are included in the Social Security regulations, direct an ALJ “to consider factors 

such as age, confinement to sedentary or light work, inability to speak English, 

educational deficiencies, and lack of job experience.” Id. Each factor may “independently limit the number of jobs realistically available to an individual.”

Id. The grids set forth when a combination of these factors yields a finding that 

the claimant is disabled. Id. Because we conclude that the grids are inapplicable 

here, we discuss them no further.

3 The Department of Labor stopped updating the DOT in 1998, and the Social 

Security Administration has been “developing a new Occupational Information System to replace the DOT and provide its ALJs with more up to date 

information about current occupations and their requirements.” Washington, 

906 F.3d at 1357 n.2. Although it has been more than 25 years since the DOT 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 7 of 12
8 Opinion of the Court 24-10770

who provides an “impartial expert opinion[].” Id. at 1357 n.1. An 

ALJ may ask a vocational expert to opine about what occupations 

a hypothetical person with the claimant’s limitations could perform. See Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002). A 

vocational expert also may opine about the number of jobs in those 

occupations that exist in the national economy. See SSR 96-9p, 1996 

WL 374185, at *9 (July 2, 1996). 

The Social Security Administration has addressed in a ruling 

how an ALJ should weigh vocational expert testimony and information from the DOT.4 See SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 

2000). Before an ALJ can rely on a vocational expert’s testimony 

about the requirements of a job or occupation, the ALJ has “an affirmative responsibility” to inquire about any possible conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the information provided in the DOT. Id. at *4. When there is an “apparent conflict”

between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT, neither 

automatically controls; instead, the ALJ must explain how he resolved the conflict. Id. When an ALJ fails to identify and resolve an 

was last updated, ALJs must continue to rely on the DOT while the Social 

Security Administration continues to develop its new system. 

4 Although we are not bound by an agency ruling interpreting its regulations, 

we have recognized that a Social Security Administration ruling is “binding 

within the Social Security Administration.” Washington, 906 F.3d at 1361. In 

addition, we require an “agency to follow its regulations where failure to enforce such regulations would adversely affect substantive rights of individuals.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 8 of 12
24-10770 Opinion of the Court 9

apparent conflict, his “decision . . . is not supported by substantial 

evidence.” Washington, 906 F.3d at 1356.

Perez argues that substantial evidence did not support the 

ALJ’s decision because the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict 

between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT about the 

amount of walking or standing required for the jobs of warehouse 

checker, small products assembler, and inspector and hand packager. This appeal turns on whether there was an apparent conflict 

between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT.

We have previously addressed when an apparent conflict exists. A conflict is apparent when it “is reasonably ascertainable or 

evident from a review of the DOT and the [vocational expert’s]

testimony.” Id. at 1365. The purported conflict must “seem[] real 

or true.” Id. at 1366 (internal quotation marks omitted). An apparent conflict thus exists when “a reasonable comparison of the DOT 

with the [vocational expert’s] testimony suggests that there is a discrepancy, even if, after further investigation, that turns out not to 

be the case.” Id. at 1365; see also Viverette v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 

13 F.4th 1309, 1316 (11th Cir. 2021) (determining that there was an 

apparent conflict when “it seem[ed] . . . from a side-by-side comparison” that the information in the DOT and the vocational expert’s testimony were inconsistent). We have explained that the 

conflict must be one that would be apparent “to an ALJ who has 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 9 of 12
10 Opinion of the Court 24-10770

ready access to and a close familiarity with the DOT.”5 Washington, 

906 F.3d at 1366.

In Washington, we recognized that an apparent conflict existed when there was a discrepancy between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT listing about the frequency with 

which a person needed to perform a particular activity for a job. See 

id. In that case, the claimant had limitations related to fine manipulation with his fingers. The vocational expert testified that a hypothetical person limited to “occasional” tasks requiring fine manipulation with his fingers could perform the positions of bagger or 

table worker, even though the DOT specified that these positions 

required “frequent” fine manipulation. Id. After performing a sideby-side comparison of the vocational expert’s testimony and the 

DOT listing, we concluded that the case presented “one of the 

clearest examples” of a conflict. Id.

Here, we conclude that there is an apparent conflict because 

a comparison of the vocational expert’s testimony and the information in the DOT seems to show a discrepancy about the frequency of standing or walking required for the jobs of warehouse 

checker, small products assembler, and inspector and hand packer. 

On the one hand, the vocational expert’s testimony indicates that 

a person who can stand or walk for no more than four hours per 

5 Because “ALJs frequently use the DOT, treat it as an authoritative source, 

and actively investigate the evidence for and against granting disability benefits,” we have recognized that “identifying these ‘apparent conflicts’ falls well 

within their wheelhouse.” Washington, 906 F.3d at 1365.

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 10 of 12
24-10770 Opinion of the Court 11

day can perform these jobs. On the other hand, the DOT states that

each job “requires walking or standing to a significant degree.” U.S. 

Dep’t of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles §§ 222.687-010,

559.687-074, 706.684-022 (4th ed. 1991); see also id. app. C § IV. Although the DOT does not quantify the number of hours per day of 

walking or standing required for a job to involve a “significant degree” of walking or standing, nothing in the DOT indicates that

such a job requires no more than four hours of walking or standing 

per day.6 Because it would be apparent to an ALJ who has close 

familiarity with the DOT that a job with a significant degree of 

walking or standing may require walking or standing for more than 

four hours per day, there seems to be a discrepancy between these 

two sources. See Washington, 906 F.3d at 1366.

Because there was an apparent conflict here, the ALJ had an 

affirmative duty to identify this discrepancy and then explain how 

he resolved it. See id. But the ALJ never mentioned this discrepancy 

or offered any explanation about how to resolve it. At most, the 

record shows that the vocational expert testified that there was no 

conflict between his opinions and the DOT. But we have explained 

that an ALJ’s duty “is not fulfilled simply by taking the [vocational 

expert] at his word that his testimony comports with the DOT 

when the record reveals an apparent conflict.” Id. at 1362.

Because the ALJ failed to acknowledge or resolve the apparent conflict, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision is not supported 

6 Indeed, the Commissioner concedes in his brief that a job that is classified as 

light work may require more than four hours of standing or walking. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 11 of 12
12 Opinion of the Court 24-10770

by substantial evidence and remand is required. See id. at 1366. It is

possible that on remand the apparent conflict may be resolved—

for example, if the vocational expert testifies that the three positions in question do not actually require walking or standing for 

more than four hours per day. But we must reverse and remand 

for further proceedings so that an ALJ can perform this inquiry in 

the first instance. See Viverette, 13 F.4th at 1317 (concluding that 

there was an apparent conflict but explaining that “[t]his does not 

mean that there is an actual conflict”); see also Lockwood v. Comm’r 

of Soc. Sec. Admin., 914 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that an 

ALJ must “identify and resolve the apparent conflict between [the 

vocational expert’s] testimony and the [DOT], even if there is a 

chance that, upon inquiry, no actual conflict would have emerged” 

(emphasis in original)).7

IV.

For the reasons given above, we reverse the judgment of the 

district court and remand with instructions to remand to the Commissioner. 

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

7 An ALJ’s failure to address an apparent conflict does not warrant reversal 

when the error is harmless. See Viverette, 13 F.4th at 1317–18. But we cannot 

say that the ALJ’s error was harmless here when the apparent conflict applied 

to all three occupations that the vocational expert presented to the ALJ. See id.

(concluding that error was not harmless when “over eighty percent of the jobs 

presented to the ALJ [were] affected by the apparent conflict”).

USCA11 Case: 24-10770 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 12 of 12