Watson v. Colvin

9 Citing cases

  1. Jackson v. Berryhill

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:18-727-TMC-BM (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    While the Defendant attempts to distinguish the Henderson decision, courts in this District have previously applied its holding in deciding this issue, and the undersigned agrees with the analysis and holdings as set forth in those decisions. See Pearson v. Commissioner, No. 16-2726, 2017 WL 1378197, at * 12-13 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 1364220 (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2017); Christopherson v. Colvin, No. 15-4725, 2016 WL 7223283, at * 9 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2016), adopted by, 2016 WL 7212785 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2016); Sullivan v. Colvin, No. 16-79, 2016 WL 7228854, at * 10 (D.S.C. Nov. 10, 2016); c.f. Watson v. Colvin, No. 15-4935, 2017 WL 694645, at * * 4-5 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2017). The Defendant also attempts to distinguish cases based on "simple, repetitive tasks" (the RFC assigned by the ALJ here) from the ] "simple one-to-two step tasks" (the RFC in Henderson).

  2. Johnson v. Berryhill

    Civil Action No. 6:17-3306-MGL-KFM (D.S.C. Feb. 19, 2019)

    See Pearson, 810 F.3d at 210 (providing that an ALJ "has a duty to investigate the facts and develop the record independent of the claimant or his counsel" and has "not fully developed the record if it contains an unresolved conflict between the expert's testimony and the [DOT]"). See also Watson v. Colvin, C.A. No. 0:15-4935-RBH, 2017 WL 694645, at *4 (Feb. 22, 2017) (stating that SSR 00-4p "puts the onus of identifying and obtaining a reasonable explanation of any conflicts between the vocational expert's testimony and the DOT on the ALJ") (citation omitted). Similarly, the district court should reject the Commissioner's argument that any error by the ALJ in this regard is harmless (doc. 19 at 21-22).

  3. Chavis v. Berryhill

    Civil Action No. 6:17-3358-MBS-KFM (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2019)

    See Pearson, 810 F.3d at 210 (providing that an ALJ "has a duty to investigate the facts and develop the record independent of the claimant or his counsel" and has "not fully developed the record if it contains an unresolved conflict between the expert's testimony and the [DOT]"). See also Watson v. Colvin, C.A. No. 0:15-4935-RBH, 2017 WL 694645, at *4 (Feb. 22, 2017) (stating that SSR 00-4p "puts the onus of identifying and obtaining a reasonable explanation of any conflicts between the vocational expert's testimony and the DOT on the ALJ") (citation omitted). The plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in failing to account for his moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace in the hypothetical to the vocational expert in violation of Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 638 (4th Cir. 2015) (doc. 14 at 35-37).

  4. Pack v. Berryhill

    Civil Action No.: 9:17-2271-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Finding apparent conflict between RFC limiting the plaintiff to "simple routine tasks in an environment free of fast-paced production requirements" and DOT's description of the identified jobs as having Reasoning Development Level of 2

    Again, the court remanded so that the ALJ could address the apparent conflict. Id. at *15; see also Pressley v. Berryhill, No. 8:16-cv-2716-BHH-JDA, 2017 WL 4174780, at *10-11 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4156460 (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2017) (remanding to resolve apparent conflict between "simple, routine, and repetitive tasks" and VE testimony regarding level two and three jobs); Watts v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-127-RMG-SVH, 2017 WL 4325685, at *12 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4296722 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict between "simple routine tasks in a low-stress environment" and level two and three jobs); Watson v. Colvin, No. 0:15-cv-4935-RBH-PJG, 2017 WL 694645, at *5 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict with "simple, routine, repetitive tasks, which must be performed in a low stress, predictable work environment" and level two and three jobs). 2018 WL 2173793, * (D.S.C. May 11, 2018).

  5. Sanders v. Berryhill

    Civil Action No.: 8:17-1066-BHH (D.S.C. Sep. 24, 2018)

    Again, the court remanded so that the ALJ could address the apparent conflict. Id. at *15; see also Pressley v. Berryhill, No. 8:16-cv-2716-BHH-JDA, 2017 WL 4174780, at *10-11 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4156460 (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2017) (remanding to resolve apparent conflict between "simple, routine, and repetitive tasks" and VE testimony regarding level two and three jobs); Watts v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-127-RMG-SVH, 2017 WL 4325685, at *12 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4296722 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict between "simple routine tasks in a low-stress environment" and level two and three jobs); Watson v. Colvin, No. 0:15-cv-4935-RBH-PJG, 2017 WL 694645, at *5 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict with "simple, routine, repetitive tasks, which must be performed in a low stress,predictable work environment" and level two and three jobs).

  6. Wilson v. Berryhill

    Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-637-BHH (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2018)

    Again, the court remanded so that the ALJ could address the apparent conflict. Id. at *15; see also Pressley v. Berryhill, No. 8:16-cv-2716-BHH-JDA, 2017 WL 4174780, at *10-11 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4156460 (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2017) (remanding to resolve apparent conflict between "simple, routine, and repetitive tasks" and VE testimony regarding level two and three jobs); Watts v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-127-RMG-SVH, 2017 WL 4325685, at *12 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4296722 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict between "simple routine tasks in a low-stress environment" and level two and three jobs); Watson v. Colvin, No. 0:15-cv-4935-RBH-PJG, 2017 WL 694645, at *5 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict with "simple, routine, repetitive tasks, which must be performed in a low stress, predictable work environment" and level two and three jobs). 2018 WL 2173793, * (D.S.C. May 11, 2018).

  7. Iliescu v. Berryhill

    C.A. No.: 4:17-cv-1067-PMD-TER (D.S.C. May. 11, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Again, the court remanded so that the ALJ could address the apparent conflict. Id. at *15; see also Pressley v. Berryhill, No. 8:16-cv-2716-BHH-JDA, 2017 WL 4174780, at *10-11 (D.S.C. Aug. 24, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4156460 (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2017) (remanding to resolve apparent conflict between "simple, routine, and repetitive tasks" and VE testimony regarding level two and three jobs); Watts v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-127-RMG-SVH, 2017 WL 4325685, at *12 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 4296722 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict between "simple routine tasks in a low-stress environment" and level two and three jobs); Watson v. Colvin, No. 0:15-cv-4935-RBH-PJG, 2017 WL 694645, at *5 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2017) (remanding to resolve conflict with "simple, routine, repetitive tasks, which must be performed in a low stress, predictable work environment" and level two and three jobs). The Court acknowledges that other districts in the Fourth Circuit have come to different conclusions.

  8. Morris v. Berryhill

    Civil No. 3:16cv587 (MHL) (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2017)   Cited 11 times

    Before Pearson, this Court found that no apparent conflict existed between an RFC that limited the claimant to simple, routine, unskilled work and jobs with an SVP of 2. Marrow v. Colvin, 2014 WL 4467271, at *16-17 (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2014). Post-Pearson, other district courts in this Circuit have similarly found no apparent conflicts between a limitation to simple, routine tasks and jobs that required a Reasoning Level of 2. See, e.g., Proctor v. Colvin, 2016 WL 6822477, at *9 (D. Md. Nov. 18, 2016) (finding Reasoning Level 2 consistent with simple, routine tasks) (additional citations omitted); Gautreau v. Colvin, 2016 WL 1314314, at *11-12 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2016) (affirming the ALJ's decision where the RFC limited the claimant to simple, routine tasks and the VE offered jobs with Reasoning Levels 1, 2 and 3). But see Watson v. Colvin, 2017 WL 694645, at *3-5 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2017) (remanding for the ALJ to determine in the first instance whether VE testimony accounted for multiple mental limitations in the RFC and remained consistent with Reasoning Level 2 jobs in the DOT). By contrast, an apparent conflict would arise between an RFC restricting a claimant to one- to two-step instructions and Reasoning Level 2. Henderson v. Colvin, 643 F. App'x 273, 276-77 (4th Cir. 2016). The DOJ defines the Specific Vocational Preparation Level ("SVP") as the amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker to learn the techniques, acquire the information and develop the facility needed for average performance in a specific job-worker situation.

  9. DeWalt-Gallman v. Berryhill

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16-2332-PMD-BM (D.S.C. May. 5, 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Determining that the ALJ failed to resolve a conflict between the VE's identification of jobs described in the DOT as having a GED reasoning level of 3 and a restriction in the RFC to "simple, routine, and repetitive tasks requiring only simple work related instructions and decisions as well as relatively few work place changes"

    Moreover, since the Henderson decision, courts in this District have applied its holding in deciding this issue, and the undersigned agrees with the analysis and holdings as set forth in those decisions. See Pearson, 2017 WL 1378197, at * 12-13; Christopherson v. Colvin, No. 15-4725-JMC-KFM, 2016 WL 7223283, at * 9 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2016), adopted by, 2016 WL 7212785 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2016); Sullivan v. Colvin, No. 16-79-JMC-JDA, 2016 WL 7228854, at * 10 (D.S.C. Nov. 10, 2016); c.f. Watson v. Colvin, No. 15-4935-RBH-PJG, 2017 WL 694645, at * * 4-5 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2017). Therefore, in light of this apparent conflict, and pursuant to SSR 00-4p, some explanation should have been obtained from the VE for how Plaintiff could perform the jobs identified by the VE with this reasoning level requirement.