Jasinski v. Barnhart, Docket No. 02-6268.

Citation341 F.3d 182
Decision Date14 August 2003
Docket NumberDocket No. 02-6268.
PartiesSuzanne L. JASINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

KENNETH R. HILLER, Amherst, NY, for Appellant.

SYBIL L. BURNETT, Assistant Regional Counsel (Lisa De Soto, General Counsel, Barbara L. Spivak, Chief Counsel, on the brief), Social Security Administration, New York, N.Y. for Appellee.

Before: WALKER, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., Chief Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Suzanne Jasinski brought this action seeking reversal of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying her application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. Jasinski claims that in her administrative hearing, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") relied upon testimony by a vocational expert that conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("the Dictionary"), an official publication of the Department of Labor. We write to clarify what constitutes a "conflict" and therefore requires legal resolution, and to explain that, in certain circumstances, an ALJ may rely on an expert's opinion, notwithstanding a conflict with the Dictionary, when the opinion is adequately supported by the evidence.

I. BACKGROUND

Jasinski claims that she became disabled due to an accident in 1999, which caused neck and back injuries and limited her ability to work. On October 19, 2000, the ALJ denied her benefits claim. To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Social Security Administration must undertake a five-step evaluation:

First, the Commissioner considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. Where the claimant is not, the Commissioner next considers whether the claimant has a "severe impairment" that significantly limits her physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment that is listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 .... Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, she has the residual functional capacity to perform her past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform her past work, the burden then shifts to the Commissioner to determine whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.

Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770, 774 (2d Cir.1999) (footnote omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Applying the fourth inquiry of this test, the ALJ found that Jasinski was not disabled because her impairment did not prevent her from doing her past relevant work as a teacher's aide. The ALJ relied primarily on the examinations of five doctors and the testimony of Timothy Janikowski, an impartial vocational expert. The expert testified that the teacher's aide position was "light exertion" according to the Dictionary, but explained that "[Jasinski] described it being between sedentary and light." He concluded that her work as a teacher's aide at Sacred Heart Catholic School was "between [] sedentary and light exertion."

The Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Jasinski's request for review on March 1, 2001, making the ALJ's decision final. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the district court reviewed the ALJ's order and granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The district court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that Jasinski retained the functional capacity to perform her past relevant work as a teacher's aide, see Jasinski v. Barnhart, No. 01 Civ. 226S (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2002). Jasinski appeals from that decision.

II. DISCUSSION

We review a district court's judgment on the pleadings de novo. Williams v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 48, 49 (2d Cir.1999). When reviewing a disability benefits determination, "our focus is not so much on the district court's ruling as it is on the administrative ruling." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We may reverse the administrative determination only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, based upon the entire administrative record. Brown v. Apfel, 174 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir.1999) (per curiam). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla," and is "such relevant evidence as reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Jasinski argues that the testimony of Timothy Janikowski, the vocational expert, in categorizing the teacher's aide position as "between sedentary and light" exertion, conflicted with the Dictionary, which categorizes it as "light" exertion. Accordingly, she contends that the ALJ should have inquired into the conflict and should have either deferred to the Dictionary or explained why she was adopting the expert's testimony over the Dictionary's definition.

We find that there was no actual conflict for the purposes of this legal question. Other circuits have found that the expert and the Dictionary conflict where they disagreed in categorizing or describing the requirements of a job as it is performed in the national economy. See, e.g., Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441, 445 (7th Cir. 2002); Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 145-46 (5th Cir.2000); Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084, 1087, 1091 (10th Cir.1999); Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1229-30 (11th Cir.1999); Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir.1995); Conn v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 51 F.3d 607, 610 (6th Cir.1995); Smith v. Shalala, 46 F.3d 45, 47 (8th Cir.1995).

However, we know of no circuits that have found a "conflict" in a discrepancy between, on the one hand, the expert's description of the job that the claimant actually performed, and the Dictionary's description of the job as it is performed in the national economy. We have held that in the fourth stage of the SSI inquiry, the claimant has the burden to show an inability to return to her previous specific job and an inability to perform her past relevant work generally. See Jock v. Harris, 651 F.2d 133, 135 (2d Cir.1981); see also SSR 82-62, 1982 WL 31386, at *3 (Past relevant work in the fourth stage of the inquiry includes "the specific job a claimant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
463 cases
  • Smith v. Champion Inter. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 26 Agosto 2008
    ...Security and private disability cases. See, e.g., Krizek v. Cigna Group Ins., 345 F.3d 91, 96 (2d Cir.2003) (ERISA); Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir.2003) (Social Security). The DOT includes a variety of information about each listed occupation, reflected in numerical codes ......
  • Gladden v. Commissioner of Social Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 29 Febrero 2008
    ...denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2981, 168 L.Ed.2d 704 (2007); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir.2004), Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir.2003); Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 105-06 (2d Cir.2003); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 586 (2d Cir.2002); Vapne v......
  • Cruz v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 2 Julio 2013
    ...(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1132, 127 S. Ct. 2981 (2007); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2004); Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir. 2003); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 586 (2d Cir. 2002); Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000); Brown v. Apfel......
  • Duran v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 22 Julio 2015
    ...(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 551 U.S. 1132, 127 S. Ct. 2981 (2007); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2004); Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir. 2003); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 586 (2d Cir. 2002); Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000); Brown v. Apfel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2015
    ...at Step Four based on the claimant’s ability to do her past relevant work as she actually performed that job. Jasinski v. Barnhart , 341 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2003). The claimant argued that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the DOT and therefore was not substantial evidenc......
  • Issue topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...at Step Four based on the claimant’s ability to do her past relevant work as she actually performed that job. Jasinski v. Barnhart , 341 F.3d 182, 185 (2d Cir. 2003). The claimant argued that the vocational expert’s testimony conflicted with the DOT and therefore was not substantial evidenc......
  • Case index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • 2 Agosto 2014
    ...Halloran v. Barnhart , 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2004), 2d-04 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATED Case Index-114 Jasinski v. Barnhart , 341 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2003), 2d-03 Lowe v. Apfel , 226 F.3d 969 (8 th Cir. Sept. 25, 2000), 8 th -00 Masterson v. Barnhart , 363 F.3d 731 (8 th Ci......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • 4 Mayo 2015
    ...Cir. Feb. 17, 1995), § 202.9 Jarrett v. U.S. Sprint Communications Co., 22 F.3d 256, 259 (10th Cir. 1994), § 604.2 Jasinski v. Barnhart , 341 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2003), 2d-03, § 1210.12 Javier v. Barnhart , 407 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2005), D.C.-05 Jawad v. Barnhart , 370 F. Su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT