Harold McLeroy v. Commr. of Social Security

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 24, 2009
No. 08-16268 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-01533-CV-T-24-MAP
HAROLD MCLEROY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Interested Party-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 24, 2009)
Before BIRCH, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Harold McLeroy appeals a judgment that affirmed the denial of his
application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. 42
U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). McLeroy argues that the administrative law judge
posed to the vocational expert a hypothetical question that contained an incorrect
standard to determine whether McLeroy’s skills were transferable. 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 administrative law judge denies benefits and
the Appeals Council denies review, we review the decision of the administrative
law judge as the final decision of the Commissioner. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d
1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
The administrative law judge posed an accurate hypothetical question to the
vocational expert. McLeroy argues that the administrative law judge should have
asked the vocational expert whether McLeroy had skills that were transferable
“with little or no vocational training or job orientation,” but that standard does not
apply to McLeroy. The regulations provide that skills must be transferable with
little or no adjustment either (1) to applicants aged 55 or older who are limited to
2
sedentary work or (2) to applicants who are capable of light work and are between
60 and 64 years old. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2 §§ 201.00(f), 202.00(f).
McLeroy does not challenge the finding of the administrative law judge that he can
perform light work and the administrative law judge made that finding when
McLeroy was 57 years old. When an applicant is limited to light work, the
“presence of acquired skills that are readily transferable to a significant range of
semi-skilled or skilled work within an individual’s residual functional capacity
would ordinarily warrant a finding of not disabled regardless of the adversity of
age . . . .” 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, § 202.00(e). The hypothetical
question posed to the vocational expert about whether there would “be much in the
way of adjustment required in the terms of tools or work processes, work settings,
or the industry” enabled the administrative law judge to determine if McLeroy’s
skills were “readily transferable.”
The judgment in favor of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
3