Griselda Farias v. Michael Astrue

Good Law
519 F. App'x 439
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 20, 201311-57088California543 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Griselda Farias appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commission er’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. We vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.

1. The ALJ erred by failing to inquire whether the vocational expert’s (VE) testimony regarding the job requirements for ticket taker (DOT 344.667-010), copy messenger (DOT code 239.677-010) and hostess (DOT code 349.677-014) conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupation Titles (DOT). SSR 00 — ip, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 2000). See Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (9th Cir.2007). The ALJ’s error was not harmless as to the occupations of ticket taker and copy messenger because the VE’s testimony that these jobs “have occasional handling requirements but no fingering requirements” conflicts with the DOT. Under the DOT’s definitions, the job of ticket taker has frequent handling and occasional fingering requirements, see Dictionary of Occupational Titles 344.667-010, available at 1991 WL 672863 , and the job of copy messenger requires frequent handling, see Dictionary of Occupational Titles…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.