Summary
This United States District Court opinion reviews the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits for Plaintiff Lori B. Applying the substantial evidence standard and the five-step sequential evaluation process, the court addresses the plaintiff's argument that the Administrative Law Judge failed to resolve an apparent conflict between vocational expert testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles regarding job requirements. Finding no obvious conflict or concluding that any error was harmless due to the availability of other significant employment, the court affirms the Commissioner's final decision denying the claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the ALJ was required to resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles for the hospital cleaner and kitchen helper occupations.
- Whether any error at step five of the five‑step sequential evaluation is harmless when the ALJ identified a significant number of jobs the claimant can perform.
Holdings
- The ALJ was not required to resolve a conflict because no obvious or apparent conflict existed; therefore the error was harmless.
- Errors at step five are harmless if the ALJ identifies a significant number of jobs that fit within the claimant’s limitations; thus the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
Key quotations
“The court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on proper legal standards and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” (at 1)
“An ALJ’s decision may not be reversed on account of a harmless error.” (at 5)
Factual background
Plaintiff Lori B. suffers from hypertension, coronary artery disease, COPD, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and other impairments. The ALJ found her residual functional capacity limited her to medium work with restrictions on climbing ladders, ropes, scaffolds, and working in temperature extremes, but concluded she could perform jobs such as kitchen helper, hospital cleaner, and cook helper.
Procedural history
Plaintiff applied for DIB in July 2021; denial on April 26, 2022; reconsideration denial September 13, 2022; ALJ hearing October 25, 2023 resulting in denial; Appeals Council denial July 29, 2024; district court review filed.