In Block v. Saul, No. C18-118-LTS, 2020 WL 1505566 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 30, 2020), Judge Strand addressed the conflict between a claimant who was limited to no overhead reaching and VE testimony that the claimant could perform her past relevant work, which under the DOT, required frequent reaching. Judge Strand remanded finding that the VE and the ALJ did not adequately address the conflict and explained
See Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that the ALJ erred by assigning "significant weight" to opinions of state agency consultants but failing to adopt some of their opined limitations); Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-3045-LTS, 2018 WL 4868986, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 27, 2018) (collecting cases from district courts in the Eighth Circuit remanding "when the ALJ purportedly g[ave] 'great weight' to the opinion of a state agency consultant but fail[ed] to adopt some of the limitations contained in that opinion without explanation"), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4489458 (Sept. 19, 2018); see also Block v. Saul, No. C18-118-LTS, 2020 WL 1505566, at *6-7 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 30, 2020) (noting that remand is not required when the ALJ assigns significant weight to the opinions of state agency consultants and fails to adopt one of their limitations as long as the ALJ's opinion as a whole "adequately articulate[s] reasons" for the failure). The new regulations explicitly provide that the ALJ must explain how persuasive, supported, and consistent a medical opinion is (including a medical opinion from a state agency consultant).
Id. at 20-21. She relied on Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2017) and my opinions in Block v. Saul, No. C18-118-LTS, 2020 WL 1505566, at *6-7 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 30, 2020), and Burns v. Saul, No. 18-cv-72-LTS (N.D. Iowa Jan. 10, 2020) (both of which discuss Gann), to conclude it was error for the ALJ not to adopt this limitation or explain why it had been omitted. Id. at 23.