Sherisa Wilds v. Commr. of Social Security

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15696 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 7, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00802-CV-T-26-MAP
SHERISA WILDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee,
SSA,
Interested Party.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 7, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sherisa Wilds appeals a judgment that affirmed the denial of her application
for supplemental security income from the Social Security Administration. 42
U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Wilds argues that the administrative law judge erred by
finding that Wilds could work as a school-crossing guard and a flag operator for
road construction and that testimony from the vocational expert that Wilds could
perform both jobs conflicted with the job responsibilities listed in the Dictionary
of Occupational Titles. We affirm.
We review the decision by the Commissioner “to determine if it is supported
by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Lewis v. Callahan,
125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence consists of “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id. at 1440. When the Commission affirms the decision of the
administrative law judge and the Appeals Council denies review of that decision,
we review the decision of the administrative law judge. Doughty v. Apfel, 245
F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
Substantial evidence supports the finding by the administrative law judge
that Wilds could work as a school-crossing guard and a flag operator for road
construction. The administrative law judge was entitled to rely on testimony from
2
the vocational expert that a person with one hand could fulfill the responsibilities
of those positions. See Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1230 (11th Cir. 1999).
There was no conflict between the testimony of the vocational expert and the
duties of a crossing guard and a flagger that are listed in the Dictionary of
Occupational Titles, and Wilds offered no evidence at the evidentiary hearing to
establish that the positions require the use of two hands. If a conflict had existed,
the administrative law judge would have been entitled to rely on the testimony of
the vocational expert. See id. at 1229–30.
The judgment in favor of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
3