Simple SVP 1 and 2 Occupations Have a Conflict with Reasoning Level 3 -- The Cases

Part three of this series. We start with Simple Work Requiring Little or No Judgment Is Not Synonymous with SVP 1 and 2 and Basic Tools of Statutory Construction Demand that SVP 1 and 2 Is Part of Unskilled But Not Synonymous. The next step in the analysis is the literature review. 

• Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1176 (10th Cir. 2005) ("simple and routine work tasks" is "inconsistent with the demands of level-three reasoning" because the plaintiff's residual functional capacity was more consistent with Level 2 than Level 3 Reasoning) (quote taken from Zavalin).

• Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2015) ("there is an apparent conflict between the residual functional capacity to perform simple, repetitive tasks, and the demands of Level 3 Reasoning").  

• Thomas v. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672, 676-77 (8th Cir. 2018) (An apparent conflict thus existed between the vocational expert's testimony that someone limited to "1 to 2 step tasks" could work as a new accounts clerk and the DOT description that being such a clerk involves a higher level of reasoning.).

• Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 313 (4th Cir. 2019) ("short, simple instructions" (as found in Thomas's RFC) and a need to carry out "detailed but uninvolved ... instructions" (as found in jobs requiring Level 2 reasoning). We hold that there is.).

• Vivrette v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 13 F.4th 1309, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2021) (reviewing cases as adopting the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits). 

But see:

• Renfrow v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2007) ("Information Clerk," No. 237.367-018, and "Customer Service Clerk," No. 299.367-010 are both classified as unskilled and so do not appear to be "complex."). 

• Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 471 (7th Cir. 2009) (Terry does not argue that she cannot perform these skills, perhaps because the record suggests she can: she finished high school, completed training to become a certified nurse's assistant, and has the cognitive capacity to follow simple instructions).

• Zernsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 618 (3d Cir. 2014) (no bright-line rule stating whether there is a per se conflict between a job that requires level 3 reasoning and a finding that a claimant should be limited to simple and routine work; Zirnsak does not seriously argue that she is incapable of performing the jobs; Zirnsak's counsel did not identify any inconsistencies between the VE's testimony and the DOT at her hearing).

Renfrow assumes that all SVP 1 and 2 jobs are unskilled and simple. Terry and Zernsak rest on a failure to address the materiality of the question, that the mental impairments, even if viewed alone are non-severe, can erode or impact the ability to perform the essential or bona fide occupational qualifications of other work at step five of the sequential evaluation process. These cases emphasize that development of the step five attack starts at the hearing level and continues to rest on the proposition that the claimant cannot perform reasoning level three work because of the mental impairment limiting them to simple work. 

This is a clear split in the circuits. Resolving that split must focus on the weaknesses of Renfrow, Terry, and Zernsak on the facts. Those facts permit the lawyers to do what they are trained to do, distinguish a case on the facts. 

Continue the battle. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Simple SVP 1 and 2 Occupations Have a Conflict with Reasoning Level 3 -- The Cases, California Social Security Attorney (May 19, 2026)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.