Edward Tester v. Carolyn Colvin

MEMORANDUM

Edward Tester appeals the district court’s order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Tester’s application for benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ánd 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and vacate the district court’s judgment and remand.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) employed the five-step analysis to determine whether Tester was disabled. In the course of applying that analysis, the ALJ determined that Tester had a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) for “simple, 1-2 step work.” The ALJ heard testimony from a vocational expert (“VE”) that a person with Tester’s RFC could perform work as a cannery worker or mail clerk. Accordingly, the ALJ found that there were jobs Tester could perform despite his limitations and that therefore he was not disabled.

Tester argues that the ALJ erred, because there is an apparent conflict between the ALJ’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). One element of the definitional trailer attached to a job in the DOT is the General Education Development Reasoning Levels. DOT, App. C (4th ed.1991). At Reasoning Level 1, a worker is required to “[a]pply commonsense…