David M. T., II v. Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

This Memorandum-Decision and Order concerns a Social Security disability benefits action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in the Northern District of New York. The court reviews the ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff was not disabled, including the residual functional capacity assessment and the step-five vocational-expert evidence concerning conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the number of available jobs.

Holdings

1. The court recognized a potential unresolved conflict between the routing-clerk description in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the RFC limitation against fast production-rate work, but held that the issue did not require remand because the ALJ identified at least two other jobs existing in significant numbers that plaintiff could perform.
2. The vocational expert's failure to identify the specific source of the job-number estimates did not require remand.
3. Approximately 9,957 jobs in the national economy constitute a significant number of jobs sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner's step-five burden in this case.
4. The ALJ's use of the 2022 vocational expert's job numbers rather than the 2024 vocational expert's numbers was not an independent ground for remand.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ's step-five finding was supported by substantial evidence despite an alleged conflict between the vocational expert's testimony concerning the routing-clerk position and the residual-functional-capacity limitation against fast production-rate work.
2. Whether the vocational expert's failure to identify the specific source of the job-number estimates required remand.
3. Whether the number of jobs remaining after excluding the routing-clerk position was significant under the Social Security Act.
4. Whether reliance on job numbers from the earlier 2022 hearing, rather than the 2024 hearing, required remand.

Disposition

affirmed