Opinion ID: 797812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ's reliance on the vocational expert's testimony

Text: 11 For the first time, we address the question whether, in light of the requirements of SSR 00-4p, 6 an ALJ may rely on a vocational expert's testimony regarding the requirements of a particular job without first inquiring whether the testimony conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. We hold than an ALJ may not. In so holding, we join the Third, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits. 7 We also follow our own precedent. 12 SSR 00-4p unambiguously provides that [w]hen a [vocational expert] . . . provides evidence about the requirements of a job or occupation, the adjudicator has an affirmative responsibility to ask about any possible conflict between that [vocational expert] . . . evidence and information provided in the [ Dictionary of Occupational Titles ]. 8 SSR 00-4p further provides that the adjudicator  will ask the vocational expert if the evidence he or she has provided is consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and obtain a reasonable explanation for any apparent conflict. 9 13 Our holding in Johnson v. Shalala 10 is consistent with these requirements. In Johnson, which predated SSR 00-4p, we held that an ALJ may rely on expert testimony which contradicts the [ Dictionary of Occupational Titles ], but only insofar as the record contains persuasive evidence to support the deviation. 11 The district court in Johnson was aware that the vocational expert's testimony deviated from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, but justifiably relied on the expert's testimony because the expert gave persuasive testimony of available job categories in the local rather than the national market, and testimony matching the specific requirements of a designated occupation with the specific abilities and limitations of the claimant. 12 As a result, the vocational expert's testimony left no unresolved potential inconsistenc[ies] in the evidence. 13 SSR 00-4p simply goes one step further, explicitly requiring that the ALJ determine whether the expert's testimony deviates from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and whether there is a reasonable explanation for any deviation. 14 The procedural requirements of SSR 00-4p ensure that the record is clear as to why an ALJ relied on a vocational expert's testimony, particularly in cases where the expert's testimony conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. In making disability determinations, the Social Security Administration relies primarily on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for information about the requirements of work in the national economy. 14 The Social Security Administration also uses testimony from vocational experts to obtain occupational evidence. 15 Although evidence provided by a vocational expert generally should be consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, [n]either the [ Dictionary of Occupational Titles ] nor the [vocational expert] . . . evidence automatically `trumps' when there is a conflict. 16 Thus, the ALJ must first determine whether a conflict exists. If it does, the ALJ must then determine whether the vocational expert's explanation for the conflict is reasonable and whether a basis exists for relying on the expert rather than the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. 17 15 Here, the ALJ did not ask the vocational expert whether her testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles 18 and, if so, whether there was a reasonable explanation for the conflict. 19 Thus, we cannot determine whether the ALJ properly relied on her testimony. 20 As a result, we cannot determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's step-five finding that Massachi could perform other work. Accordingly, we vacate in part the district court's summary judgment upholding the Commissioner's decision and instruct the district court to remand this case so that the ALJ can perform the appropriate inquiries under SSR 00-4p. 16