Elizabeth M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviews the denial of Plaintiff Elizabeth M.'s application for disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court examines alleged conflicts between vocational-expert testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles concerning the occupations of document preparer, appointment clerk, and sorter. It affirms the findings concerning the document preparer and sorter positions, rejects the finding concerning the appointment clerk position, and, according to the order's introductory disposition, affirms the ALJ's final determination that Plaintiff is not disabled.

Holdings

1. The ALJ reasonably resolved the conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the DOT regarding the current technology used by document preparers and did not err in relying on that occupation.
2. The ALJ reasonably relied on the vocational expert's testimony that the sorter occupation could be learned in less than 30 days and therefore could be performed without transferable skills.
3. The ALJ erred in relying on the appointment-clerk occupation because its frequent interaction requirements conflicted with Plaintiff's RFC limitation to occasional interaction, and the ALJ failed to resolve the apparent conflict.
4. The 55,000 sorter and document-preparer jobs identified in the national economy constituted a significant number of jobs sufficient to support the finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ properly resolved the conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles concerning the document-preparer occupation.
2. Whether the ALJ properly relied on vocational-expert testimony that Plaintiff could perform the sorter occupation despite the DOT's semi-skilled classification.
3. Whether the ALJ erred in relying on the appointment-clerk occupation despite an apparent conflict between its frequent interaction requirements and Plaintiff's RFC limitation to occasional interaction.
4. Whether the remaining sorter and document-preparer jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy to support the finding that Plaintiff was not disabled.

Disposition

affirmed