Blue

MEMORANDUM ***

While the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) is not the sole source of admissible information concerning jobs and “expert testimony may be properly used to show that the particular jobs ... may be ones that the claimant can perform,” Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir.1995), here the vocational expert did not even acknowledge, much less justify through his expert knowledge, his deviance from the DOT. In such a circumstance, the testimony by the vocational expert cannot be said to overcome the presumption flowing from the DOT that the jobs identified as “semi-skilled” are indeed such, and not capable of being performed by appellant, who is “unskilled.” This issue must be remanded for the questioning of a vocational expert on whether: (1) there are any jobs in the DOT that appellant can perform given her skill level and physical impairments, and, if not, (2) whether the vocational expert believes such jobs exist and, if so, (3) the basis of that opinion.

Based primarily on the reports of the treating and examining physicians, Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc) (assessed functional limitations are valid…