Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama reviewed the denial of Felicia O.'s applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Administrative Law Judge's decision, including the step-five vocational findings, and concluded that no apparent conflict existed between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied, the Commissioner's motion was granted, and the Commissioner's decision was affirmed.
Holdings
- The ALJ's step-five finding was supported by substantial evidence because the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert included claimant's impairments and limitations, and the vocational expert identified jobs available in significant numbers that claimant could perform.
- The alleged inconsistency between the vocational-expert testimony and SSR 85-15 or the POMS did not require remand because Social Security Rulings and the POMS do not bind the district court in the manner asserted by claimant, and claimant did not show a conflict between the vocational testimony and the DOT.
- No apparent conflict between the vocational-expert testimony and the DOT was shown, so the ALJ was not required to remand or otherwise take corrective action.
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's step-five finding that claimant could perform other work in the national economy despite an RFC limitation requiring help making plans and more than normal direction for adapting to future work-setting changes.
- Whether the ALJ was required to resolve an alleged conflict between the vocational-expert testimony and SSR 85-15 and POMS provisions concerning unskilled work.
- Whether the ALJ failed to identify and resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational-expert testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (22)
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir.)(followed)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987)(followed)
- McRoberts v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir.)(followed)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401 (1971)(followed)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir.)(followed)
- Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838-39 (11th Cir.)(followed)
- Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir.)(followed)
- Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir.)(followed)
- Albra v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 825 F. App'x 704, 708 (11th Cir.)(followed)
- Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1356, 1359-60, 1362-63, 1365-66 (11th Cir.)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 22.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…