Court Finds ALJ Failed to Weigh Evidence Properly in Noreja v. Berryhill

In Noreja v. Berryhill, the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico reviewed a denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits and remanded the case due to issues with how the vocational expert testimony was handled. The court addressed whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) adequately reconciled a conflict between the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and the vocational expert's (VE) testimony.

Procedural History and Hearing

Elida Noreja applied for SSDI benefits in December 2012, alleging disability beginning in October 2010. Her application was denied at the initial and reconsideration levels. She appeared at a hearing before an ALJ in June of 2015.

At the hearing, a VE testified about Noreja's ability to perform certain jobs in the national economy. The ALJ posed a hypothetical question based on limitations that included standing or walking no more than four hours in an eight-hour workday and sitting for about six hours. The VE identified three jobs—routing clerk, mail clerk, and office helper—that Noreja could allegedly perform despite these limitations. All three jobs were classified as requiring a light exertion level in the DOT.

ALJ Decision and Appeals Council Review

The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision in July 2015. The decision concluded that Noreja could perform light work with some limitations and that jobs existed in the national economy that she could perform. The Appeals Council denied review in May 2017, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

District Court Review and Conflict Between VE and DOT

The district court reviewed whether the ALJ had properly addressed the apparent conflict between the VE's testimony and the DOT descriptions of the identified jobs. Light work generally requires the ability to stand or walk for up to six hours in a workday. Noreja was found limited to four hours of standing or walking, which conflicted with the DOT classification of the jobs provided.

The court noted that Social Security Ruling (SSR) 00-4p requires an ALJ to resolve any apparent conflict between VE testimony and the DOT. The court found that the ALJ did not question the VE about how an individual with Noreja’s limitations could perform jobs classified as light work. No explanation appeared in the hearing transcript or the written decision.

Remand for Further Proceedings

The court concluded that the ALJ failed to fulfill the requirement under SSR 00-4p to identify and resolve the conflict. Without a reasonable explanation for how Noreja could perform jobs requiring more standing or walking than her limitations allowed, the ALJ’s decision lacked substantial evidence.

The court remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the Commissioner to conduct a new hearing and obtain clarification regarding the VE’s testimony in relation to the DOT.

Support with Social Security Disability Appeals

If you have received a denial of disability benefits and are considering an appeal, the attorneys at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC provide support with hearing preparation, appeal strategy, and administrative review for Social Security Disability claims.