Lerma v. Colvin, 4:16-cv-01281

Aurora Lerma applied for DIB and SSI in 2013, alleging disability since 2007 from knee osteoarthritis, diabetes, hypertension, depression, PTSD, and insomnia; applications were denied administratively and after an ALJ hearing.
At the September 23, 2014 hearing Lerma testified she works part‑time with accommodations, has right‑knee pain limiting standing/walking, and has depression/anxiety; a medical expert and a vocational expert testified.
The ALJ found severe impairments (right knee degenerative joint disease, major depressive disorder, PTSD, diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity), awarded an RFC for light work with specific postural and simple‑mental limits, and concluded Lerma could perform her past unskilled light work as a sales attendant.
Lerma appealed, arguing the ALJ failed to (1) make specific findings comparing her RFC to the physical/mental demands of past work, (2) ask the VE about DOT consistency, (3) account for standing/walking and mental limitations relative to DOT sales attendant duties, and (4) consider an employer letter about accommodations.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed for substantial evidence and proper legal standards, concluded the ALJ properly relied on the VE testimony and record evidence, found no prejudicial procedural error, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of ALJ findings re: demands of past work	Lerma: ALJ failed to make specific factual findings comparing her RFC to physical/mental demands of sales attendant	Commissioner: ALJ relied on VE testimony and identified DOT code; that sufficed	Held: No error — ALJ’s reliance on VE testimony provided sufficient factual basis
VE testimony consistency with DOT	Lerma: ALJ failed to ask VE whether his testimony was consistent with the DOT, causing possible conflict	Commissioner: VE explicitly cited DOT and addressed hypothetical incorporating RFC; any conflict was not shown	Held: No prejudicial error — any implied conflict was resolved by VE testimony and ALJ crediting VE
Ability to perform sales attendant given standing/walking & mental limits	Lerma: RFC (standing/walking six hours; simple instructions only) conflicts with DOT duties and mental demands	Commissioner: VE considered those limitations in hypothetical and testified Lerma could do past work as performed	Held: Held for Commissioner — plaintiff did not show evidence overturning VE’s conclusion
Consideration of employer accommodation letter	Lerma: ALJ ignored letter stating she works only with accommodations	Commissioner: Employer letter is a lay opinion and does not establish disability; ALJ not required to discuss every piece of evidence	Held: No reversible error — ALJ may discount lay opinion and was not required to single out the letter

Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (standard for five‑step sequential evaluation and review for substantial evidence)
Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2000) (ALJ may rely on vocational expert where hypothetical incorporates claimant’s limitations)
Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1990) (claimant bears burden to prove inability to perform former work; ALJ must inquire sufficiently)
Latham v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 1994) (ALJ must compare claimant’s RFC to demands of past work)
Randall v. Astrue, 570 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard of review)
Crowley v. Apfel, 197 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 1999) (claimant must prove inability to perform jobs identified by VE)