Christopher G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

This report and recommendation concerns judicial review of the denial of Christopher G.’s application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The magistrate judge recommends reversal and remand because the ALJ found state-agency psychological opinions persuasive but did not adopt or explain the omission of their three- to four-step-task limitation; the recommendation rejects the separate argument that the vocational-expert testimony concerning the marker occupation was insufficient because that occupation is obsolete.

Holdings

1. The ALJ erred by finding the state-agency psychological consultants' opinions persuasive but failing to adopt, or explain the failure to adopt, their limitation that Plaintiff could perform three- to four-step tasks.
2. The ALJ did not err as a matter of law by relying on vocational-expert testimony that a significant number of marker positions existed in the national economy. The DOT description did not necessarily establish that the occupation was obsolete, and the unchallenged testimony of an experienced vocational expert constituted substantial evidence in this record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ erred by finding the state-agency psychological consultants' opinions persuasive while failing to include, or explain the omission of, their limitation that Plaintiff could perform three- to four-step tasks.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's reliance on vocational-expert testimony concerning the number of marker jobs in the national economy despite Plaintiff's argument that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles description was obsolete.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded