BOST v. KIJAKAZI
1:23-cv-01020
M.D.N.C.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Lessie B. sought judicial review of a Social Security Administration (SSA) denial of her Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) claim under Title II of the Social Security Act.
- The application claimed disability onset as of December 15, 2019, due to various physical impairments.
- After initial denial and reconsideration, a de novo hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found Lessie B. not disabled, specifically finding she could return to her past work as an office helper and driver with certain limitations.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s reliance on vocational expert (VE) testimony, arguing that it conflicted with the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), particularly on requirements for overhead reaching and standing/walking.
- The court’s review was limited to whether the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ reliance on VE testimony conflicting with DOT (overhead reach) | VE's testimony conflicted with DOT's frequent reaching requirement; ALJ failed to properly resolve conflict per SSR 00-4p and Pearson. | ALJ identified, questioned, and received a reasonable explanation from VE about the conflict based on VE’s experience; resolution met regulatory and case law. | Held for Defendant — ALJ’s questioning and reliance on VE's experience sufficiently addressed the conflict as required by law. |
| ALJ reliance on VE testimony conflicting with DOT (standing/walking) | Plaintiff’s RFC limited to 4 hours standing/walking conflicted with DOT’s classification of jobs as "light work" needing 6 hours. | "Light work" includes roles permitting significant sitting (not all require 6 hours standing/walking); VE and ALJ addressed specifics of Plaintiff's jobs. | Held for Defendant — No direct conflict; VE explained, jobs permitted/allowed for sit/stand option, sufficing under SSR 00-4p. |
| ALJ’s step four finding (past relevant work) | Plaintiff could not perform past work as actually performed, due to physical limitations. | VE considered Plaintiff’s testimony and found her actual job duties compatible with the RFC limitations, regardless of DOT max requirements. | Held for Defendant — ALJ properly relied on VE testimony about actual job performance and substantial evidence supported finding. |
| Requirement of detailed explanation by ALJ under SSR 00-4p | ALJ needed more detailed resolution/explanation of DOT/VE conflicts. | Explanation sufficed: ALJ specifically questioned VE, accepted experience-based rationale, and documented resolution in the decision. | Held for Defendant — No further elaboration required by case law or SSR 00-4p; ALJ met obligations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 2006) (recites standard for substantial evidence in review of social security decisions)
- Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2012) (clarifies five-step sequential evaluation process and substantial evidence review)
- Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT at hearing)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2001) (sets forth substantial evidence standard and RFC assessment requirements)