Sherisa Wilds v. Commr. of Social Security , 322 F. App'x 800 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                         [DO NOT PUBLISH]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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-15696

Citation Numbers: 322 F. App'x 800

Filed Date: 4/7/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023