Case: 18-10648 Date Filed: 08/27/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10648
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-00461-JSS
COLLEEN TEAGUE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 27, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Colleen Teague appeals the judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial
of her application for disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Teague
Case: 18-10648 Date Filed: 08/27/2018 Page: 2 of 5
argues that the administrative law judge erred by relying on the vocational expert’s
testimony that she can perform a substantial number of jobs in the national
economy. Because Teague presented no evidence to the contrary and no objection
to the vocational expert’s testimony, we affirm.
We review de novo whether substantial evidence supports the administrative
law judge’s decision. Wilson v. Barnhart,
284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002).
We do not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our own
judgment for that of the administrative law judge. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec.,
631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). So long as the administrative law
judge’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we must defer to it even if
the evidence may preponderate against it. See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004).
A claimant is disabled if she is unable to engage in substantial gainful
activity by reason of a medically determinable impairment that can be expected to
result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The claimant bears the burden of
proving her disability. Ellison v. Barnhart,
355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003).
To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the administrative law judge uses a
five-step evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). That is, the administrative law judge
determines whether the claimant (1) is unable to engage in substantial gainful
2
Case: 18-10648 Date Filed: 08/27/2018 Page: 3 of 5
activity; (2) has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment;
(3) has such an impairment that meets or equals a Listing of Impairments and
meets the duration requirements; (4) can perform her past relevant work, in light of
her residual functional capacity; and (5) can make an adjustment to other work, in
the light of her residual function capacity, education, and work experience.
Id.
§ 404.1520(a)(4). At the fifth step, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving
that a significant number of jobs that the claimant can perform exist in the national
economy.
Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). If a
significant number of jobs exist, then the claimant is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v).
The administrative law judge must identify specific jobs that the claimant
can perform, and that finding must be supported by substantial evidence.
Wilson,
284 F.3d at 1227. An administrative law judge may make this finding by posing
hypothetical questions to a vocational expert. See
Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180. A
vocational expert is “an expert on the kinds of jobs an individual can perform
based on his or her capacity and impairments.” Phillips v. Barnhart,
357 F.3d
1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004). For the testimony of a vocational expert to constitute
substantial evidence, the administrative law judge “must pose a hypothetical
question which comprises all of the claimant’s impairments.” Jones v. Apfel,
190
F.3d 1224, 1229 (11th Cir. 1999). After the administrative law judge identifies
3
Case: 18-10648 Date Filed: 08/27/2018 Page: 4 of 5
specific jobs that the claimant can perform, “the claimant must prove that she is
unable to perform those jobs in order to be found disabled.”
Id. at 1228.
Work exists in the national economy when it exists in significant numbers
either in the region where the claimant lives or in several other regions of the
country. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(a). The administrative law judge, based on the
vocational expert’s testimony, determines whether the number of jobs is
significant. See
Jones, 190 F.3d at 1230. We have upheld a finding that 174 small
appliance repairman positions in the area in which the claimant resided, 1,600
general appliance repair jobs in Georgia, and 80,000 jobs nationwide established
the existence of work in significant numbers. Allen v. Bowen,
816 F.2d 600, 602
(11th Cir. 1987).
Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s finding that
Teague could perform a substantial number of jobs in the national economy. At her
hearing before the administrative law judge, Teague challenged neither the
hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert nor the expert’s testimony that
she could perform the jobs of parking lot cashier, hand packager, and bagger. The
vocational expert identified nearly 2.5 million jobs that Teague could perform in
the national economy. Teague offered no evidence to the contrary, and she raised
no objection to the vocational expert’s qualifications. The vocational expert’s
unrebutted testimony—based on her experience, practice, having completed onsite
4
Case: 18-10648 Date Filed: 08/27/2018 Page: 5 of 5
job analyses for the specific jobs for which she found Teague qualified, and the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles—constituted substantial evidence that a
significant number of jobs in the national economy existed that Teague could
perform. See
Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1180; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). Because
substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s finding that Teague
was not disabled, we affirm. See
Jones, 190 F.3d at 1228.
AFFIRMED.
5
