Court Opinion

ID: 9814062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:32:54.45391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:55.800935
License: Public Domain

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment, but write separately to highlight what I see as the primary reason to reverse the decision of the district court. The key issue in this case is the ALJ’s misstatement in clarifying his hypothetical questions to the vocational expert. But for the ALJ’s error in telling the vocational expert that Lancaster’s mental impairments were “mild,” when in fact the hypothetical questions characterized them as “moderate,” I would be inclined to affirm the judgment of the district court. The ALJ’s opinion was otherwise thorough and supported by substantial evidence. Because Lancaster’s *578mental limitations are so important to the determination of his ability to work, however, I am persuaded by the lead opinion that a remand for further proceedings is appropriate.