Kevin O. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah reviews the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Kevin O.’s claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court rejects the plaintiff’s challenges concerning vocational-expert testimony, conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, job-number evidence, and the residual functional capacity assessment, and affirms the administrative law judge’s decision.

Holdings

1. SSR 00-4p requires an ALJ to identify, investigate, explain, and resolve conflicts between vocational-expert testimony and the DOT, but does not require resolution of alleged conflicts with other occupational-data sources absent supporting authority.
2. The vocational expert's testimony did not conflict with Plaintiff's RFC or the DOT because the identified jobs involved the lowest or near-lowest levels of data and people functioning and did not require significant public interaction.
3. The difference between SkillTRAN's estimate of approximately 35 to 36 hours per week and the SSA definition of regular and continuing work did not, without more, establish that the vocational expert's job numbers were unreliable.
4. A vocational expert's reliance on SkillTRAN or other sources in forming an opinion does not establish unreliability absent a demonstrated conflict with the DOT or other showing of error.
5. The RFC adequately accounted for Plaintiff's supported limitations, including moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, through restrictions on task complexity, social interaction, decision-making, and workplace adaptation.
6. The vocational expert's testimony constituted substantial evidence because the hypothetical presented to the expert included all limitations ultimately adopted in the RFC.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ complied with SSR 00-4p by identifying and resolving conflicts between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
2. Whether the vocational expert's job-number testimony was unreliable because of differences between SkillTRAN's definition of full-time work and the Social Security Administration's definition.
3. Whether reliance on SkillTRAN rendered the vocational expert's testimony unreliable.
4. Whether the ALJ's RFC assessment adequately accounted for Plaintiff's impairments, including moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace.
5. Whether the vocational expert's testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the step-five finding.

Disposition

affirmed