Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision affirming the denial of Daniele Rae Powley’s applications for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court held that the administrative law judge failed to adequately address and resolve significant and probative discrepancies between the vocational expert’s job-number estimates and Powley’s contrary evidence. The case was remanded to the agency for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Powley's contrary job-number evidence was significant and probative under the Ninth Circuit's precedent.
- Whether the ALJ was required to address and resolve the discrepancies and inconsistencies between Powley's job-number evidence and the vocational expert's estimates.
- Whether the ALJ adequately addressed and resolved those discrepancies by stating that the vocational expert's testimony was more persuasive because of the expert's experience and the hypotheticals posed.
Holdings
- Powley's counter evidence was both significant and probative. It was probative because it used SkillTRAN and other data sources and methodologies frequently relied on by the Social Security Administration, and it was significant because the discrepancies between the vocational expert's estimates and Powley's estimates were comparable to those in Buck and White.
- When a claimant submits job-number evidence that is significant and probative, the ALJ must address the discrepancy and resolve the inconsistency between the claimant's estimates and the vocational expert's estimates.
- The ALJ did not adequately address or resolve the discrepancies between the vocational expert's job-number evidence and Powley's counter evidence.
Key quotations
“If the new evidence is significant and probative, we must remand to the ALJ to address the inconsistency in the record evidence.” (at 13)
“The ALJ is required to both “address” the discrepancy and “resolve the inconsistency between the job-number estimates provided by [Powley] and by the VE.”” (at 20)
“Finally, there is no question that the ALJ did not resolve the inconsistency between Arne’s and Powley’s job numbers.” (at 21)
Factual background
Powley alleged disability based on multiple sclerosis, Sjogren's syndrome, asthma, cervical spine degenerative disc disease, major depressive disorder, and other conditions. The ALJ found that she could perform sedentary work subject to specified physical and mental limitations, could not perform past relevant work, but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The vocational expert identified three jobs and supplied job-number estimates, while Powley submitted evidence from SkillTRAN, the U.S. Census Bureau, and related sources showing dramatically smaller or nonexistent numbers for those jobs. The ALJ rejected Powley's evidence in conclusory terms and relied on the vocational expert's experience and testimony.
Procedural history
Powley applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and an ALJ denied benefits after applying the Social Security Administration's five-step sequential evaluation process. After an earlier district-court remand on issues not presented in this appeal, a different ALJ again found Powley not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded to the agency because the ALJ failed to address and resolve significant and probative discrepancies between the vocational expert's job-number estimates and Powley's contrary evidence.
Remand instructions
Remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including addressing the discrepancies and resolving the inconsistencies between the vocational expert's job-number estimates and Powley's significant and probative contrary evidence.