Ninth Circuit Remands Over Reasoning-Level Conflict

A recent Ninth Circuit decision — Romero v. Bisignano (Nov. 12, 2025) — provides a timely reminder that reasoning-level conflicts between a claimant’s RFC and jobs identified at Step Five cannot be ignored. For Social Security Disability attorneys, especially those practicing in the Ninth Circuit, this case underscores two critical points:

• Reasoning levels still matter.

• ALJs must explicitly reconcile conflicts on the record.

  
  

What Happened in Romero v. Bisignano?

In Romero, the claimant’s RFC limited her to “tasks that are detailed but not complex.” That aligns with Level 2 Reasoning under the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which involves:

• Detailed but uninvolved instructions

• Work requiring limited judgment in carrying out tasks

  
  

However, the vocational expert (VE) at the hearing identified jobs that required Level 3 Reasoning — work involving:

• Instructions in various forms (oral, written, diagrammatic)

• Greater independent judgment

  
  

Why This Matters

A mismatch between a claimant’s RFC and jobs relied on at Step Five — without explanation — presents an apparent conflict. In Romero:

• The ALJ failed to ask the VE to explain this conflict.

• The Ninth Circuit held that was legal error.

  
  

Ninth Circuit’s Key Takeaways

⚖️ What the Court Held:

• There was an apparent conflict between the RFC and the jobs cited by the VE.

• Under Ninth Circuit precedent (Zavalin v. Colvin, Lamear v. Berryhill, and Stiffler v. Berryhill), the ALJ must address such conflicts on the record.

• The ALJ did not do so, and the Commissioner’s harmless-error argument failed.

  
  

📌 The Commissioner argued that the claimant’s education and daily activities justified reliance on Level 3 jobs — but:

• The court found no evidence linking her education or activities to the ability to perform Level 3 Reasoning work.

• No clear, evidence-based bridge was established.

  
  

Result

👉 The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded because the Step Five finding was not supported by substantial evidence.

What This Means for Practitioners

Here are the practical lessons from Romero for disability attorneys:

✅ Reasoning Levels Still Matter

Don’t assume reasoning-level conflicts are obsolete. The Ninth Circuit continues to treat them as meaningful.

✅ Apparent Conflicts Must Be Reconciled

If the VE identifies jobs with higher reasoning levels than the RFC allows, the ALJ must:

• Ask the VE to explain the conflict, and

• Address this explanation in the record.

  
  

Failing to do so is legal error.

✅ Harmless Error Arguments Require Evidence

General assertions about education or activities don’t automatically cure a reasoning-level mismatch. There must be:

• Clear evidence linking the claimant’s abilities to the reasoning level of the jobs cited.

  
  

Why Romero Should Be in Your Appellate Brief

If you handle Social Security appeals in the Ninth Circuit:

• Identify reasoning-level conflicts at Step Five.

• Preserve objections during the hearing.

• Include Ninth Circuit reasoning-level precedents in your briefs.

• Cite Romero when the ALJ fails to reconcile conflicts.

  
  

This case is a clean, concise canon for arguing that ALJs must inquire about conflicts — not leave it to advocates.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.