Minnesota District Court reverses ALJ
March 29, 2017. The ALJ denied benefits on the basis that the claimant could perform other work in the national economy, relying on vocational expert testimony that there were jobs available that accommodated for the claimant’s limitation to “simple, routine, 1-2 step tasks”. We successfully argued that the jobs provided by the vocational expert were inconsistent with the descriptions in the DOT, as the jobs required a higher reasoning level than the ALJ’s RFC provided. The district court reversed, finding that there was a conflict in the vocational expert’s testimony that was not resolved and therefore, the ALJ’s step 5 finding was not supported by substantial evidence.