Opinion ID: 172423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ’s Evaluations at Steps Four and Five.

Text: As found by the second mental consultative examiner, Dr. Vaught, Ms. Krueger has a moderate mental limitation pertaining to her ability to interact appropriately with the general public. See Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 223. At the hearing before the ALJ, the ALJ instructed the vocational expert (VE) to accept this mental limitation as supported by the administrative record in determining, as part of the step-four inquiry, whether Ms. Krueger was capable of performing her past jobs. Id. at 257-58. The VE then testified that Ms. Krueger’s moderate mental limitation pertaining to her ability to interact appropriately with the general public would not prevent her from performing her past jobs as a cashier, receptionist, and bailiff. As the VE explained: Your honor, she, in my opinion, from what the RFCs indicate, the moderate limitation on [interacting with] the public does not - - it does affect but it would not preclude her ability to perform the basic work functions. In my opinion, then, she could do the mental requirements of the jobs that she had been doing. Id. at 259. On cross-examination by Ms. Krueger’s counsel, the VE further elaborated on this point as follows: -5- There is, under social interaction, the ability to interact appropriately with the general public, a moderate [limitation]. However, that, generally speaking, in itself, again, because that’s the only one marked in the social interaction [category], would not necessarily mean she could not do basic work functions. And for the most part, the work as a cashier, receptionist, bailiff, she’s not doing intense kinds of questioning, like interviewing, you know, these kinds of work functions are fairly straightforward in job descriptions. Id. at 265. We conclude that there is a conflict between the VE’s testimony and the job descriptions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (4th ed. 1991) for the jobs of cashier, receptionist, and bailiff. A conflict exists because, contrary to the testimony of the VE, the DOT defines these jobs as requiring “significant” contact with people. 3 See DICOT 211.462-014 (Cashier-Checker), 1991 WL 671841 at 2; DICOT 237.367-038 (Receptionist), 1991 WL 672192 at 2; and DICOT 337.667-010 (Bailiff), 1991 WL 673189 at 2. 4 The ALJ failed to ask the VE to reconcile this conflict, however, and the ALJ therefore committed reversible error in violation of this court’s holding in Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 3 As we have previously noted, “[e]ach job listed in the DOT is described by reference to various components. One component is ‘Worker Functions.’ The worker function labeled ‘People’ expresses the degree of interaction with other people that the job requires.” Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1175 (10th Cir. 2005). All three of Ms. Krueger’s past jobs have a people rating of 6, which means that they require “[t]alking with and/or signaling people to convey or exchange information [and] giving assignments and/or directions to helpers or assistants.” DOT, Vol. II at 1006 (4th ed. 1991). 4 “DICOT” is the name of the on-line database on Westlaw that contains all of the job descriptions that are found in the fourth edition of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. -6- 1084, 1091 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that “the ALJ must investigate and elicit a reasonable explanation for any conflict between the [DOT] and expert testimony before the ALJ may rely on the expert’s testimony as substantial evidence to support a determination of nondisability”). See also Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1175 (10th Cir. 2005) (applying Haddock to nonexertional limitations); Poppa v. Astrue, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 1488953 at  (10th Cir. May 27, 2009) (noting that Social Security Ruling 00-4p 5 “requires that an ALJ must inquire about and resolve any conflicts between a [VE’s] testimony regarding a job and the description of that job in the [DOT]”). Our conclusion that a conflict exists between the VE’s testimony and the DOT is not at odds with our decision in Hackett. In Hackett, we concluded that there was no conflict between statements in the DOT that the jobs of “call-out operator” and “surveillance-system monitor” required significant contact with people and Ms. Hackett’s inability to have direct contact with the general public due to a mental impairment. See Hackett, 395 F.3d at 1175-76. Hackett is distinguishable, however, because, as we noted in our opinion in Hackett, the full DOT job descriptions for the jobs of call-out operator and surveillance-system monitor “indicate[d] that contact with people [was] rather limited.” Id. at 1175. Here, by contrast, the full DOT job descriptions for the jobs of cashier, 5 See SSR 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 2000). -7- receptionist, and bailiff clearly indicate that extensive contact with people is an important aspect of the jobs. See DICOT 211.462-014 (Cashier-Checker), 1991 WL 671841 at 1; DICOT 237.367-038 (Receptionist), 1991 WL 672192 at 1; and DICOT 337.667-010 (Bailiff), 1991 WL 673189 at 1. As a result, in accordance with Haddock, this case must be remanded to the Commissioner so that additional step-four testimony can be obtained from the VE. In addition, as pointed out by Ms. Krueger in her reply brief, “[t]wo of the six jobs found by the VE for [Ms. Krueger] to perform at step 5 also require significant dealing with the public. These are the [jobs of] telephone answerer and . . . order clerk.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 9; see also DICOT 235.662-026 (Telephone-Answering-Service Operator), 1991 WL 672176 at 2; DICOT 209.567-014 (Order Clerk, Food and Beverage), 1991 WL 671794 at 2. On remand, in order to comply with Haddock, the Commissioner will also need to obtain additional testimony from the VE regarding these two jobs. In the alternative, the Commissioner has the option of obtaining additional testimony from the VE to confirm that there are no conflicts between the DOT and the other four jobs identified by the VE at step five, which appears to be the case as the DOT states that those jobs do not require significant contact with people. See DICOT 203.582-054 (Data Entry Clerk), 1991 WL 671700 at 2; DICOT 209.687-026 (Mail Clerk), 1991 WL 671813 at 2; DICOT 209.587-034 (Marker), 1991 WL 671802 at 2; DICOT 209.587-010 (Addresser), 1991 WL 671797 at 2. -8- Finally, in order to address certain concerns raised by Ms. Krueger in her opening brief regarding the ALJ’s step-five findings, see Aplt. Opening Br. at 25-26, the ALJ will also need to determine on remand whether Ms. Krueger’s limited mathematical skills (as noted by the ALJ in his first and second hypothetical questions to the VE; see Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 257, 261) preclude her from performing any of the jobs identified by the VE at step five.