CAROLINE LEACH V. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, No. 22-55504 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseClaimant appealed the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of social security benefits by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Reviewing de novo the district court’s decision, Farlow v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 485, 487 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit reversed The ALJ materially mischaracterized Claimant’s functional capacity when posing a question to a vocational expert, so the vocational expert’s testimony lacked evidentiary value with respect to jobs that Claimant could perform. Here, Claimant argued that the ALJ’s question posed to the vocational expert inaccurately described her actual limitations. First, the hypothetical posed to the expert did not provide that claimant was limited to jobs with “little or no judgment.” The panel concluded that the error was harmless because the vocational expert identified only jobs with that limitation. Second, the hypothetical did not provide that Claimant could “follow short, simple instructions” only. Third, in the question posed to the vocational expert, the ALJ described a hypothetical person who “can work in an environment with occasional changes to the work setting.” The panel concluded that the ALJ materially mischaracterized Claimant’s functional capacity when posing a question to a vocational expert, so the vocational expert’s testimony lacked evidentiary value with respect to jobs that Claimant could perform.
Court Description: Social Security The panel reversed the district court’s judgment upholding an administrative law judge (“ALJ”)’s denial of Claimant Caroline Leach’s application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, and remanded.
An ALJ often calls upon a vocational expert to testify about what jobs, if any, a hypothetical person with specified limitations may perform. If the ALJ reaches the final step of the five-step sequential evaluation process, the ALJ may rely—as the ALJ did here—on the vocational expert’s testimony.
Here, Claimant argued that the ALJ’s question posed to the vocational expert inaccurately described her actual limitations. First, the hypothetical posed to the expert did not provide that claimant was limited to jobs with “little or no judgment.” The panel concluded that the error was harmless because the vocational expert identified only jobs with that limitation.
Second, the hypothetical did not provide that Claimant could “follow short, simple instructions” only. The panel held that because the ALJ omitted the qualifying adjective “short” when posing the question to the vocational expert, thereby describing a hypothetical person with greater functional capacity than Claimant possesses, the ALJ erred by relying on the vocational expert’s testimony, and the error was not harmless.
Third, in the question posed to the vocational expert, the ALJ described a hypothetical person who “can work in an environment with occasional changes to the work setting.” The panel held that the ALJ’s reformulation does not accurately reflect Claimant’s limitation to “few” changes only, and that the error was not harmless.
The panel concluded that the ALJ materially mischaracterized Claimant’s functional capacity when posing a question to a vocational expert, so the vocational expert’s testimony lacked evidentiary value with respect to jobs that Claimant could perform. Because the ALJ relied on the vocational expert’s testimony in concluding that Claimant was not disabled, the panel reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded to the district court with the instruction to remand the case to the agency for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.