Boone v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 203 (8th Cir. 2003)

New opinion from the Eighth Circuit reversing DC's entry of summary judgment for Commissioner and remanding to District Court with instructions to return to Commissioner for further proceedings. The holding relates to pre-SSR 00-4p cases as the ALJ decided the case before SSR 00-4p was issued:

Given this hesitation, the conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT — which worked to Boone’s disadvantage — as to each occupation identified by the VE, and the failure of the VE and the ALJ to acknowledge (much less explain) the conflict, we conclude that the VE’s testimony does not by itself provide substantial evidence of a significant number of jobs in the economy that Boone can perform. We must consider, however, whether the record otherwise contains such evidence.

Page 11.

The Court then discusses erosion of the occupational base and SSR 83-12:

[W]e shall not interpret SSR 83-12 to mandate reversal whenever the ALJ does not set out specific findings concerning the erosion of the occupational base if, as here, the ALJ has received the assistance of a VE in considering the more precise question whether there are a significant number of jobs in the economy that the claimant can perform.

Nothing about framework in this opinion.