Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01926/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01926-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1926

___________

Mary Tucker, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2005

Filed: May 3, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mary Tucker appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of disability

and widow’s insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. In her March

2000 applications, Tucker alleged disability since October 1998 from cancer,

diabetes, arthritis, and glaucoma. At a hearing, where Tucker was represented by

counsel, an administrative law judge (ALJ) posed a hypothetical describing a

Appellate Case: 04-1926 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2005 Entry ID: 1898208
-2-

claimant of Tucker’s age, educational level, and past work experience, who could

perform light work with occasional climbing, stooping, crouching, crawling, and

kneeling. A vocational expert (VE) testified that such a claimant could not perform

Tucker’s past jobs, but that Tucker’s skills from her past job as a home attendant,

which was at the medium exertional level, were transferable to that of a companion

position, which was at the light exertional level. 

After the hearing, the ALJ determined that (1) Tucker had a severe impairment

or combination of severe impairments that were not of listing-level severity; (2) her

allegations as to limitations were not totally credible; (3) she could perform a full

range of light work, but could not perform her past relevant work; and (4) considering

her advanced age, limited education, and transferable skills, she was not disabled

under the Medical Vocational Guidelines. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2,

Table 2, Rule 202.03 (2004) (claimants of advanced age, with limited education, and

whose previous work in skilled or semiskilled jobs is transferable, are not disabled).

The ALJ pointed out that his conclusion was supported by the VE’s testimony. After

the Appeals Council denied review, the district court affirmed. 

Contrary to Tucker’s assertions on appeal, the ALJ properly relied on VE

testimony to find that Tucker had transferable skills, see Fines v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 893,

895 (8th Cir. 1998); Davis v. Shalala, 31 F.3d 753, 756 (8th Cir. 1994); and under

Social Security Ruling 82-41, the ALJ and VE were not required to identify Tucker’s

transferable skills, see Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 548-50 (6th Cir.

2004). Because the VE was present when Tucker testified about her age, past work,

and educational level, it was not necessary for the ALJ to specify those in his

hypothetical; and it was not necessary for the ALJ to explain the meaning of light

work to the VE. Finally, the only differences in the characteristics of the homeattendant and companion jobs are that the first is medium work and requires a

language development of two, whereas the second is light work and requires a

Appellate Case: 04-1926 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2005 Entry ID: 1898208
-3-

language development of three. Tucker does not explain--and we fail to discern--why

this difference in language development requires reversal. 

Tucker’s remaining arguments, most of which she raises only indirectly,

provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm, finding substantial evidence

supporting the ALJ’s determination. See Harris v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926, 928 (8th

Cir. 2004) (standard of review). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1926 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2005 Entry ID: 1898208