Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 30 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Igor Zavalin v. Carolyn W. Colvin.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Igor Zavalin v. Carolyn W. Colvin Anchor | green | “when there is an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the dot-for example, expert testimony that a claimant can perform an occupation involving dot requirements that appear more than the claimant can handle-the alj is required to reconcile the inconsis…” | 8 |
| 2 | Maria Gutierrez v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “essential, integral, or expected” | 7 |
| 3 | Maria Gutierrez v. Carolyn Colvin | green | “essential, integral, or expected.” | 6 |
| 4 | Darren Lamear v. Nancy Berryhill | green | “essential, integral, or expected” | 5 |
| 5 | Shaibi v. Berryhill | green | “an alj is required to investigate and resolve any apparent conflict between the ve's testimony and the dot, regardless of whether a claimant raises the conflict before the agency.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.