McFarland v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:16-cv-00308

Background

Plaintiff Michael J. McFarland sought DIB and SSI for alleged disability beginning October 16, 2008; initial denials led to ALJ hearings in 2011 and 2014 and a final adverse decision in July 2014.
ALJ found severe impairments (cardiac disease, COPD, diabetes, degenerative spine, borderline intellectual functioning, mental disorders, obesity, substance abuse) but concluded claimant retained a sedentary RFC with nonexertional limits (e.g., simple, routine, repetitive tasks; calm/consistent setting; no public contact; occasional coworker/supervisor interaction).
At Step Five a vocational expert (VE) testified that claimant could perform several representative jobs (table worker, cuff folder, document preparer), providing national job numbers—some numbers reflected broader OES/SOC groups rather than single DOT codes.
Plaintiff challenged VE testimony as unreliable: asserted VE misused OES group figures, relied on potentially obsolete job (document preparer), and that identified jobs did not truly fit the RFC (calm/consistent setting, clear expectations).
ALJ credited VE based on her experience and reliance on BLS/OES and proprietary tools (Job Browser Pro, SkillTRAN), found substantial national jobs existed, and denied benefits; district court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliance on VE job numbers	VE’s national job counts were inaccurate because she gave OES-group totals rather than DOT-specific figures, undermining Step Five proof	VE relied on professional experience and reliable sources (BLS/OES, Job Browser Pro, SkillTRAN); ALJ may credit such testimony; substantial evidence supports finding of significant jobs	Court upheld ALJ: VE’s testimony and methods provided sufficient basis; substantial evidence supports Step Five finding
Obsolescence of a job (document preparer)	Document preparer is essentially obsolete and cannot support Step Five	VE acknowledged microfilming is outdated but explained present work equivalent (collating); other jobs also available	Court rejected obsolescence claim: VE permissibly supplemented DOT with her expertise and alternative job tasks; no error
Fit between RFC and identified jobs	VE’s later testimony showed jobs might not always be “calm and consistent” or have clear expectations, so they don’t match RFC	Temporary/emergency deviations or supervisor variability do not negate that occupations are generally calm/consistent; hypothetical need only reflect ALJ’s accepted limitations	Court held VE’s testimony was consistent with RFC; ALJ properly relied on the VE’s answers
Sufficiency of VE methodology (use of proprietary databases and OES groups)	Browning-style critique: aggregating OES numbers or dividing group totals is unreliable	Regulators permit reliance on experts’ professional knowledge and published job data; no requirement of 'sum certain'; ALJ may take administrative notice of BLS/OES and weigh VE credibility	Court found method acceptable here given VE’s experience, explanation, and identification of specific jobs within groups; substantial evidence present

Key Cases Cited

Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir.) (standard of appellate review; affirm ALJ if supported by substantial evidence)
Varley v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 777 (6th Cir.) (VE testimony in response to hypothetical can be substantial evidence)
Hall v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 272 (6th Cir.) (definition of ‘‘significant number’’ and factors to consider for job availability)
Harmon v. Apfel, 168 F.3d 289 (6th Cir.) (ALJ need not expressly analyze every Hall factor)
Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir.) (hypothetical must accurately portray claimant’s limitations)
Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377 (6th Cir.) (ALJ may rely on VE testimony to establish jobs exist)
Browning v. Colvin, 766 F.3d 707 (7th Cir.) (criticizes simplistic use of OES group totals for DOT occupations; discussed by court as distinguishable)