Nicole Dobbins v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart , 182 F. App'x 618 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-2085
    ___________
    Nicole Dobbins,                      *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    *
    v.                             * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner,   * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Social Security Administration,      *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 26, 2006
    Filed: May 31, 2006
    ___________
    Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Nicole Dobbins (Dobbins) appeals the district court’s1 decision upholding the
    Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Dobbins
    argues the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by relying on the vocational expert’s
    (VE) testimony Dobbins could perform the work of a surveillance-system monitor,
    1
    The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the
    Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
    of Arkansas.
    even though Dobbins can sit for only three to four hours per eight-hour work day.
    Dobbins argues the VE testified that surveillance-system monitor is an unskilled
    sedentary job, classified as involving six hours of sitting in an eight-hour day, and
    conceded on cross-examination an individual who cannot sit for six hours in an eight-
    hour day is not capable of performing sedentary work under the definitions in the
    Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).2 Thus Dobbins concludes, because the VE
    did not adequately explain the discrepancy, the DOT controls and establishes she is
    disabled.
    We affirm the Commissioner’s final decision if it is supported by substantial
    evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance
    but enough that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the ALJ’s
    conclusions, taking into consideration evidence that detracts from as well as supports
    those conclusions. See Cunningham v. Apfel, 
    222 F.3d 496
    , 500 (8th Cir. 2000).
    When VE testimony conflicts with the DOT, the DOT controls when the DOT
    classifications are not rebutted. See Porch v. Chater, 
    115 F.3d 567
    , 572 (8th Cir.
    1997). The DOT classifications may be rebutted with VE testimony which
    demonstrates specific jobs “‘whether classified as light or sedentary, may be ones that
    a claimant can perform.’” See Young v. Apfel, 
    221 F.3d 1065
    , 1070 (8th Cir. 2000)
    (quoting Montgomery v. Chater, 
    69 F.3d 273
    , 276 (8th Cir. 1995)).
    In this case, the VE explained, although the DOT indicated a claimant
    performing a surveillance-system monitor job would be required to sit six hours, not
    all employers would require such sitting abilities and from an employer’s standpoint,
    a person would not have to sit for six hours out of an eight-hour workday to perform
    the work of a surveillance-system monitor. The VE based these findings on his
    consultation with an alarm company that gave him “estimated numbers on
    2
    According to the DOT, a surveillance-system monitor is a sedentary job that
    involves sitting most of the time. See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, DOT § 379.367-010 (4th
    ed. 1991).
    -2-
    surveillance system monitors” along with their job duties. Therefore, we hold the
    VE’s testimony adequately rebutted the DOT’s classification. See Wheeler v. Apfel,
    
    224 F.3d 891
    , 896-97 (8th Cir. 2000) (rejecting claimant’s challenge to ALJ’s reliance
    on VE’s testimony--i.e., DOT descriptions for jobs VE identified allegedly were
    inconsistent with ALJ’s residual functional capacity findings--as VE responded to
    hypothetical that included all of claimant’s restrictions; DOT definitions are merely
    generic job descriptions that approximate maximum requirements for each position;
    and DOT cautions descriptions may not coincide in every respect with content of jobs
    as performed in specific establishments or localities).
    We conclude the Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial
    evidence on the record as a whole, and the judgment is affirmed.
    _____________________________
    -3-