
    Azizeh RASHIDI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-55542
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Lawrence David Rohlfing, Attorney, Law Offices of Lawrence Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Daniel Paul Talbert, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Henry L, Chi, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Thomas C. Stahl, Chief Counsel, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Azizeh Rashidi appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015), and we reverse and remand.

Rashidi contends that, at step five of the sequential analysis, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in relying on the vocational expert’s testimony that she could perform work as a sorter, staffer, and polisher even though the ALJ assessed she retained the residual functional capacity to use her right, dominant hand only occasionally for fine and gross manipulation. Under Lomear v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2017), this contention has merit. There was an apparent conflict between the expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which provides that the occupations .identified by the expert require frequent handling and fingering. See id. at 1206 (concluding that there was an apparent conflict between the Dictionary and a vocational expert’s opinion that a claimant with left hand and arm limitations could work as an office helper, mail clerk, or parking lot cashier). The ALJ erred by failing to ask the expert to reconcile the conflict. See Gutierrez v. Colvin, 844 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir 2016). This error was not harmless because it is not possible to determine from the record, the Dictionary, or common experience whether the jobs of sorter, staffer, and polisher require both hands. See Lomear, 865 F.3d at 1206-07 (reversing and remanding to permit ALJ to follow up with vocational expert).

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     