Romero v. Bisignano

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 12 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHANIE ALEXANDRA ROMERO, No. 24-5814 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-01395-AN v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Adrienne C. Nelson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 7, 2025** Portland, Oregon Before: M. SMITH, NGUYEN, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Stephanie Alexandra Romero appeals the district court’s order affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (Title II); § 1381 et seq. (Title XVI). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the district court’s order affirming the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits de novo and will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Kitchen v. Kijakazi, 82 F.4th 732, 738 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020)). We reverse and remand for further proceedings. The ALJ erred in failing to inquire further into the apparent conflict between Romero’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the occupations in the national economy identified by the vocational expert as suitable for an individual with Romero’s limitations. Romero’s RFC closely matched Level 2 Reasoning under the U.S. Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”), while the occupations identified by the vocational expert require Level 3 Reasoning under the DOT.1 “When there is an apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT . . . the ALJ is required to reconcile the inconsistency . . . .” Stiffler v. O’Malley, 102 F.4th 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2024) (alterations in original) (quoting Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 846 (9th Cir. 2015)). Because the conflict here is apparent, it “trigger[ed] the ALJ’s obligation to 1 Romero’s RFC limited her to “tasks that are detailed, but not complex;” Level 2 Reasoning under the DOT refers to “detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions.” See DOT, App. C, § III, 1991 WL 688702 (4th ed. 1991). 2 24-5814 inquire further.” Lamear v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir. 2017). The Commissioner argues that any error was harmless because Romero’s education and daily activities indicate that she can perform occupations requiring Level 3 Reasoning. But there is nothing in the record indicating how Romero’s education and daily activities translate to that reasoning level. See Zavalin, 778 F.3d at 848. We therefore cannot determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s step-five finding. See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014). REVERSED and REMANDED to the district court, with instructions for the district court to remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. 3 24-5814