Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01183/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Robin R. Jordan
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1183

___________

Robin R. Jordan, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *

Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 6, 2010

Filed: August 17, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robin R. Jordan appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered

Jordan’s arguments for reversal, we affirm. See Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838,

841-42 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review).

Appellate Case: 10-1183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010 Entry ID: 3693979
-2-

Jordan alleged disability since November 2004 from painful foot problems and

issues with his left hand. After two hearings, where Jordan was counseled, an

administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Jordan’s impairments--hammer

toes, flat feet, bilateral hallux valgus with corns and calluses, and swollen fingers on

his non-dominant left hand--were severe in combination, but alone or combined did

not meet or medically equal the requirements of any listing; (2) he had the residual

functional capacity (RFC) for less than the full range of sedentary work; (3) his

statements on the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not

credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the RFC findings; and (4) while his

RFC precluded his past relevant work, he could perform two jobs that a vocational

expert (VE) identified in response to the ALJ’s hypothetical--information clerk and

office helper--which existed in significant numbers regionally and locally. The

Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. 

On appeal Jordan challenges the reliability of the VE’s testimony concerning

how many of the two identified jobs were available nationally and regionally. To the

extent he is arguing that the VE did not adequately explain the inconsistency between

his testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) on the classification

of these two jobs, we disagree. See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1070 (8th Cir.

2000) (VE adequately rebutted DOT classification of jobs as light by testifying that

some existing nationally and locally were sedentary; DOT definitions reflect only

approximate maximum requirements). We also reject his various challenges to the

privately published source of the VE’s opinion on the numbers of available jobs. See

Whitehouse v. Sullivan, 949 F.2d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 1991) (there is no requirement

that VE correlate DOT titles with job-services summaries; VE need only state opinion

on number of jobs available in national economy that match applicant’s RFC, age,

work experience, and education). Jordan’s remaining arguments for reversal warrant

no discussion. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2010 Entry ID: 3693979