## Facts

- Elizabeth Hackett applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging disability from reflex sympathetic dystrophy, tenosynovitis, limited range of motion, upper back pain, depression, and migraines.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found severe impairments but concluded Hackett retained residual functional capacity (RFC) for a range of light work.
- The ALJ limited Hackett to work with no direct contact with the general public and to simple, repetitive tasks.
- At step five, a vocational expert (VE) identified two jobs said to exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
- The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) descriptions for the identified jobs required level-three reasoning.
- The VE acknowledged the RFC did not directly match the DOT descriptions but did not explain the discrepancy.
- The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed the denial of benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether the Appeals Council adequately considered a Colorado workers’ compensation decision finding Hackett permanently and totally disabled.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s RFC findings, including the credibility determination and evaluation of treating-physician opinions.
3. Whether the ALJ erred at step five by misstating VE testimony and failing to resolve conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner on the workers’ compensation-decision issue.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the ALJ’s RFC findings, credibility assessment, and treatment of treating-physician opinions as supported by substantial evidence and consistent with governing legal standards.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed the step-five determination because the ALJ failed to obtain a reasonable explanation for, and resolve, the conflict between the VE’s job testimony and the DOT.
- The court remanded to the district court with directions to remand to the agency for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Decisions by other agencies on disability are not binding on the Commissioner, but must be considered and may be given weight.
- A reviewing court upholds the Commissioner’s decision if supported by substantial evidence and if the correct legal standards were applied.
- Credibility findings are generally upheld when closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence.
- Treating-physician opinions receive controlling weight when well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ may discount them with specific, legitimate reasons grounded in the record.
- Under SSR 00-4p, an ALJ must identify and obtain a reasonable explanation for conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT, resolve the conflict on the record, and only then rely on the VE testimony at step five.
- An RFC limitation to simple, repetitive tasks may conflict with DOT jobs requiring higher reasoning levels; unexplained reliance on such jobs cannot support a step-five finding.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit largely upheld the denial of benefits but required remand because the ALJ relied on VE-identified jobs that conflicted with the DOT’s reasoning-level requirements without eliciting and explaining a reasonable resolution as required by SSR 00-4p.


Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005)