Pennsylvania District Court Reverses ALJ

May 16, 2016.  The claimant in this case had a profound degree of deafness.  At the administrative hearing, a vocational expert testified that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) did not take into account noise requirements for the positions he provided, yet the ALJ still relied on the offered positions and denied benefits.  We successfully argued that the vocational expert did not explain that another source within the DOT did in fact address ambient noise requirements for all work positions, and the positons that the ALJ relied on far exceeded the moderate noise levels that the claimant could tolerate.  The district court held that the inconsistency between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT resulted in a finding that was not based on substantial evidence and required remand for further proceedings.