Remand Required When ALJ Relied on Vocational Expert's Conclusion But Ignored Testimony Which Was Inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
OVERMAN v. ASTRUE (October 7, 2008)
Gerald Overman is a 58-year old high school graduate. For years, he worked as an unskilled maintenance worker and repairman at a golf course. He was able to work, even though he suffered from diabetes, hypertension, and some fairly serious vision problems. He began to experience more serious problems. He became tired and overheated very easily and lost quite a bit of weight. He was diagnosed with Graves’ disease and anemia. Overman began radioactive iodine therapy for the Graves' disease. The treatment was somewhat successful but his physician had a difficult time finding the correct dosage. Overman's vision was also worsening. His physician's conclusion was that “any” visual task would be difficult for Overman and that his eyesight was continuing to deteriorate. Overman applied for social security benefits. An ALJ conducted a hearing in 2005. Overman testified regarding his condition and disabilities. He said he tired easily, could not see well, could not be in extreme temperatures, and could not lift much weight. The agency medical consultant testified that Overman could not perform work that required reading or fine visual determination, or that involved extreme temperatures or heavy lifting. A Vocational Expert (“VE”) also testified. He testified that Overman could not continue in his prior field of work, primarily because of the temperature extremes. He did testify, however, that he could perform two jobs: a material packaging job and a keg-filling job. The VE also testified that his testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). On cross-examination, the VE admitted that both jobs he said Overman could perform would be eliminated if Overman was not capable of fine visual discrimination or reading. The ALJ found that Overman could do either of the two jobs identified by the VE. He gave great weight to the VE’s testimony on direct. The ALJ believed the testimony on cross-examination merely confirmed the VE’s conclusion about other jobs he had eliminated. Overman sought review in the district court . The court upheld the ALJ’s decision. Overman appeals.
In their opinion, Judges Posner, Sykes, and Tinder (in a per curiam opinion) reversed. The Court observed that the VE’s testimony about the two available jobs did, in fact, conflict with the DOT. Both jobs require a degree of visual acuity and reading ability that Overman does not have. The Commissioner concedes as much but argues that remand is unnecessary. The Court pointed out that a Social Security Ruling requires the ALJ to confirm that the VE’s testimony is consistent with the DOT and further requires a ALJ to inquire further if an apparent conflict exists. Overman’s counsel did not bring the conflicts to the attention of the ALJ. Therefore, the Court stated, the conflicts must be obvious enough to cause the ALJ to notice them without assistance. The Court found that the conflicts with respect to vision and reading capabilities should have been apparent to the ALJ. The Court also held that the ALJ’s ruling was not supported by substantial evidence because of the flawed VE testimony.
