N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDWARD TESTER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35210 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01313-HU
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . Edwa rd Te ste r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de c ision of the C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity de ny ing Te ste r’ s a

pplic ation for be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 42 U.S.C
. § 405(g) a

n d va c ate the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t a nd re m and. 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.The Adm inistra tive La wJudge (“ ALJ” ) e m

p loy e d the five -ste p a

na ly sis to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r Te ste r wa s disa

ble d. 1 In the c ourse of a

p ply ing tha

t a na ly sis, the A LJ de te rm ine d tha

t Te s te r ha d a

re sidua l func tiona l c a

pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) for

“ sim p le , 1-2 step work.” The ALJ he ard te stim ony from a voc ationa l e xpe rt (“ VE” ) that a

pe rson with Te ste r’ s R

FC c o uld pe rform

work a s a

c anne ry worke r
or m a il c le rk. Ac c ordingly , the ALJ found tha t the re we re jobs Te ste r c ould pe rform de spite his limita tions a nd tha t the re fore he wa s not disa ble d. Te ste r argue s tha

t the ALJ e rre d , be c a

use the re is a

n a ppa re nt c onflic t be twe e n the ALJ’ s te stim o ny and the Dic tiona

ry of Oc c u pationa l Title s (“ DOT” ). One e le m e n t of the de finitiona l tra ile r atta c he d to a job in theDOT is theGe ne ra l Educ ation De ve lopm e nt R e a soning Le ve ls. DOT, App. C(4th e d. 1991). At R e a soning Le ve l 1, a worke r is re quire d to “ [a ] p ply c om m o nse nse unde rsta

n ding to c a rry out sim ple one - to two-ste

p instruc tions. De a l with sta n da rdiz e d situa

tions with oc c a siona l or no va

ria ble s in or from the se situa tions e nc ounte re d on the job.” Id. B y c ontra st, a

worke r at R e a soning Le ve l 2 is re quire d to “ [a ] pply
c om m onse nse unde rsta

nding to c arry

out de ta ile d but uninvolve d writte n or ora l

1 The Soc ia l Se c urity

re gula tions pre sc ribe a

five -ste p e va luation to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r a c la im an t is disa

ble d
. Se e 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1520, 416.920(a)(4) (2015). W e e xpla ine d the five -ste p e va luation in de t a il in Bustamante

v . Massanari , 262 F.3d 949, 953–54 (9th C ir. 2001). -2-instruc tions. De a l with problem s involving a fe w c onc re te va ria ble s in or from sta nda rdiz e d situa

tions.” Id. The jobs tha

t the VE ide ntifie d Te ste r c ould pe rform
re quire d R e a soning Le ve l 2 or highe r. Te s te r c onte n ds tha t his R FC for “ sim

ple , 1- 2 ste p work” is in a

ppa re nt c onflic t with Re a soning Le ve l 2, a n d tha t he is limite d to R e a s oning Le v e l 1 work. Thedistric t c ourt disa gre e d

and he ld tha

t the re wa s no
a ppa re nt c onflic t. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s orde r a ffirm ing a n ALJ’ s de c ision de ny ing
soc i a l se c urity

be ne fits de novo. Zav a lin v . C olv in , 778 F.3d 842, 845 (9th C ir. 2015). “ W e re vie wthe C om m issione r’ s disa

bility de c i sion ‘ to de te rm ine if it is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e in the re c ord a s a whole and whe the r it is ba se d on prope r le ga l sta

nda rds.’ ” Id. (quoting N

y man v . He c k

le r , 779 F.2d 528, 530 (9th C ir. 1986)).

“ Whe n a VE . . . provide s e vide nc e a bout there quire m e nts of a job or
oc c upation, thea djudic at or ha s a n a ffirm ative re sponsibility to a sk a bout a ny possible c onflic t be twe e n tha t . . . e vide n c e and inform ation provide d in theDOT.” SSR 00-4p, 2000 W

L 1898704, a

t *2 (De c . 4, 2000) (“ SSR 00-4p” ). Ne i the r the VE’ s te stim ony

nor the DOT trum

ps the othe r; if the re is a

c onflic t be twe e n the m , the A LJ m

ust re solve the c onflic t be fore he c an re ly on the VE’ s te stim ony

to de te rm i ne tha

t a c la im a nt is or is not disa

ble d. Id. at *2. W e have inte rpre te d SSR -3-00-4p a s “ e xplic itly re quiring tha

t the ALJ de te rm ine whe the r the e xpe rt’ s te stim ony de viate s from

the Dic tionary

of Oc c upational Title

s and whe the r the re is
a re a sona ble e xpla nation for a

ny de viation.” Massac h i v . Astrue , 486 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th C ir. 2007). The re is no dispute tha t the ALJ fa ile d to re c ogniz e or
re solve any

a ppa re nt c onflic t in this c a se . 2 Te ste r prim arily

c onte nds tha

t, be c a use the la ngua ge in his R

FC c l ose ly tra c ks the la

ngua ge in R e a soning Le v e l 1, a lim ita t ion to “ sim

ple , 1-2 ste p work” is inc o nsiste nt with the re quire m e nts of R e a soning Le ve l 2. R e c e ntly , we de c i de d a sim ila r issue in Rounds v . C

ommissione r of Soc ial Se c urity , No. 13-5505 (9th C ir. August 4, 2015). In R ounds , we re lie d on Zav alin v

. C olv in to hold tha

t a n R FC for “ one to two ste

p ta sks” wa s in a

ppa re nt c onflic t with “ the de m ands of Le ve l Two re a soning, whic h re quire s a pe rson to ‘ a

pply c om m onse nse unde rsta

nding to
c arry out de ta ile d but uninvolve d writte n or ora l instruc tions.’ ” Rounds , slip op. a t 11–13 (a lte ra tion omitte d). B e c a use the re wa s a

n a ppa re nt c onflic t tha

t the ALJ did not a ddre ss, the c ourt c ould not de t e rm i ne whe the r the ALJ’ s de c i sion wa s

2 The C om

m issione r’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the ALJ wa s e n title d to re ly on the VE’ s re sponse tha

t the re wa s no c onflic t is una v a iling. ALJs ha

ve an a ffirm ative re sponsibility

to re solve a

ppa re nt c o nflic ts, se e SSR 00-4p, a nd a VE’ s a nswe r that the re is no c onflic t doe s not e lim inate tha t duty whe re , a s he re , the re c ord e vinc e s a pote ntia l c o nflic t. -4-supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Id. at 13. Ac c ordingly , re m and wa s re quire d for the ALJ to re solve the c onflic t. Id. at 14. Te ste r’ s c a se is indistinguisha ble from Rounds . Te s te r’ s R FC a lso inc lude d
a lim ita tion for “ 1-2 ste p work.” The a ddition of the re stric tion tha

t Te ste r be lim ite d to “ sim

p le , 1-2 step work” re inforc e s the c onc lusion c om pe lle d by R ounds that Te ste r’ s R

FC is in a ppa re nt c onflic t with Re a soning Le ve l 2. The re fore , the ALJ e rre d by

not re solving this c onflic t a nd wa s not e ntitle d to re ly on the VE’ s te stim ony whe n de te rm ining whe t

he r Te ste r wa s disa

ble d at ste p 5. Eve n though the

ALJ e rre d by

fa iling to re solve a

c onflic t, we do not re m and if the e rror we re ha

rm le ss. S e e Massac hi , 486 F.3d a

t 1154 n.19. The C om m issione r a s se rts tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss, be c a

use Te ste r ha d pre viously pe rform e d R e a s oning Le ve l 2 work a nd substa ntia l e vide nc e indic ate d he c ould still pe rform

tha t work. W e disa gre e . The C om m issione r fa ils to give

any signific anc e to the e vide n c e in the re c ord tha t Te ste r’ s c a

pa c ity ha d dim inishe d sinc e his pre v ious e m

ploy m e nt. Te ste r a sse rte d tha t he le ft his prior job, be c a use his c ondition wa s de te riorating. Hefe are d tha t the inc re a se d pa in, a

nd the
m e dic at ion he ne e de d to ta ke to m ana ge it, im

pa ire d his foc us a

nd his vision suc

h that he would bea

da nge r to him se lf or othe rs. In e s se nc e , Te ste r a sse rte d tha t he
c ould no longer pe rform

R e a soning Le ve l 2 work. W e a lso find im porta nt to this -5-ana ly sis tha

t Te ste r ha d a

te nth gra d e e d

uc ation a nd took spe c i a l e duc ation c la sse s. W e are le ft with a grave doubt on the re c ord be fore us tha

t Te ste r c a

n pe rform R e a soning Le ve l 2 work. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s orde r and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this opinion. C osts to be aw a

rde d to Te ste r. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D
.

-6-