Ridenour v. Apfel ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 27 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LORI K. RIDENOUR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-5240
(D.C. No. 96-CV-184)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (N.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and TACHA , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court affirming the
Commissioner’s decision to deny plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance
benefits and for supplemental security income. Plaintiff filed her applications in
early spring of 1993, alleging she had been disabled since early 1991 as a result
of a left knee injury sustained in March 1991, scoliosis of the spine, depression,
and pain. After an administrative hearing in November 1994, the administrative
law judge (ALJ) issued a decision finding plaintiff not disabled. The ALJ
concluded that plaintiff suffered from pain in her left knee and moderate
depression, but that her impairments did not meet or equal the listings. Because
plaintiff’s past work did not constitute substantial gainful activity, the ALJ
proceeded to step five of the sequential analysis. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920. Based on testimony from a vocational expert (VE), the ALJ concluded
that plaintiff could perform certain light and sedentary jobs that exist in the
national economy despite her exertional and nonexertional limitations. The ALJ’s
decision subsequently became the final decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff raises three challenges to the ALJ’s decision. First, she contends
that the ALJ’s assessment of her residual functional capacity (RFC) failed to take
into account medical evidence showing that her knee pain precluded her from
twisting. Second, plaintiff contends that the ALJ propounded an incomplete
hypothetical question to the VE because he omitted a limitation on twisting.
-2-
Finally, plaintiff contends that the VE’s testimony that someone with plaintiff’s
limitations could perform certain sedentary hand packaging and filling jobs
conflicted with the description of those jobs contained in the Dictionary
Occupational Titles.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the correct
legal standards were applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial
evidence in the record viewed as a whole. See Castellano v. Secretary of
Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994). “If supported by
substantial evidence, the [Commissioner’s] findings are conclusive and must be
affirmed.” Sisco v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 10 F.3d 739,
741 (10th Cir. 1993). “In evaluating the appeal, we neither reweigh the evidence
nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency.” Casias v. Secretary of
Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff’s first challenge is not supported by the evidence in the
administrative record. The medical records do not reflect that any doctor
restricted plaintiff to activities that do not involve twisting. The only reference in
the record to twisting is in a report from a vocational consultant. That report
quotes a single sentence from a June 1993 medical report that is not in the record,
in which a physician expressed the opinion that plaintiff was likely to have pain
-3-
in the knee with twisting, but that “‘[t]hese episodes are usually of no lasting
consequences.’” Appellant’s App., Vol. II at 255.
Because the record does not support plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ
should have included a twisting limitation in her RFC, plaintiff’s further
contention that the ALJ erred in not including such a limitation in the hypothetical
question he propounded to the VE fails, as well. So long as the ALJ’s findings
about plaintiff’s limitations were reflected in the hypothetical question
propounded to the VE, the ALJ could rely upon the VE’s testimony in
determining whether plaintiff is disabled at step five of the sequential analysis.
See Decker v. Chater , 86 F.3d 953, 955 (10th Cir. 1996). The hypothetical
question the ALJ propounded to the VE here contained all the limitations found
by the ALJ, including a restriction to light or sedentary work that did not involve
more than occasional bending or stooping, mild to moderate pain of sufficient
severity to be noticeable to plaintiff at all times, and a need to change positions
from time to time.
Based on all the limitations listed by the ALJ in his hypothetical question,
the VE testified that plaintiff could perform sedentary and light, unskilled bench
assembly jobs, as well as sedentary, unskilled hand packaging jobs. The VE said
there were a total of 5,000 light and sedentary assembly jobs in Oklahoma and a
total of 485,000 such jobs in the national economy that would accommodate all
-4-
plaintiff’s limitations, including her need to change position periodically. He also
said there were 200 sedentary hand packaging jobs in Oklahoma and 40,000 such
jobs nationally that also would accommodate plaintiff’s limitations. Plaintiff
challenges the VE’s opinion about the availability of sedentary hand packaging
jobs. She claims that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles describes the
exertional demands of hand packager and machine packager jobs as medium,
rather than sedentary. We need not decide whether the VE’s testimony conflicts
with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Even if the hand packaging positions
identified by the VE were eliminated from the potential job base, a significant
number of light and sedentary assembly jobs still remain that plaintiff can
perform. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that
plaintiff is not disabled.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-5-