Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02085/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02085-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Nicole Dobbins
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the

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

of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2085

___________

Nicole Dobbins, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2006

 Filed: May 31, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nicole Dobbins (Dobbins) appeals the district court’s1

 decision upholding the

Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Dobbins

argues the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by relying on the vocational expert’s

(VE) testimony Dobbins could perform the work of a surveillance-system monitor,

Appellate Case: 05-2085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2006 Entry ID: 2050442
2

According to the DOT, a surveillance-system monitor is a sedentary job that

involves sitting most of the time. See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, DOT § 379.367-010 (4th

ed. 1991). 

-2-

even though Dobbins can sit for only three to four hours per eight-hour work day.

Dobbins argues the VE testified that surveillance-system monitor is an unskilled

sedentary job, classified as involving six hours of sitting in an eight-hour day, and

conceded on cross-examination an individual who cannot sit for six hours in an eighthour day is not capable of performing sedentary work under the definitions in the

Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).2

 Thus Dobbins concludes, because the VE

did not adequately explain the discrepancy, the DOT controls and establishes she is

disabled.

We affirm the Commissioner’s final decision if it is supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance

but enough that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the ALJ’s

conclusions, taking into consideration evidence that detracts from as well as supports

those conclusions. See Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000).

When VE testimony conflicts with the DOT, the DOT controls when the DOT

classifications are not rebutted. See Porch v. Chater, 115 F.3d 567, 572 (8th Cir.

1997). The DOT classifications may be rebutted with VE testimony which

demonstrates specific jobs “‘whether classified as light or sedentary, may be ones that

a claimant can perform.’” See Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1070 (8th Cir. 2000)

(quoting Montgomery v. Chater, 69 F.3d 273, 276 (8th Cir. 1995)). 

In this case, the VE explained, although the DOT indicated a claimant

performing a surveillance-system monitor job would be required to sit six hours, not

all employers would require such sitting abilities and from an employer’s standpoint,

a person would not have to sit for six hours out of an eight-hour workday to perform

the work of a surveillance-system monitor. The VE based these findings on his

consultation with an alarm company that gave him “estimated numbers on

Appellate Case: 05-2085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2006 Entry ID: 2050442
-3-

surveillance system monitors” along with their job duties. Therefore, we hold the

VE’s testimony adequately rebutted the DOT’s classification. See Wheeler v. Apfel,

224 F.3d 891, 896-97 (8th Cir. 2000) (rejecting claimant’s challenge to ALJ’s reliance

on VE’s testimony--i.e., DOT descriptions for jobs VE identified allegedly were

inconsistent with ALJ’s residual functional capacity findings--as VE responded to

hypothetical that included all of claimant’s restrictions; DOT definitions are merely

generic job descriptions that approximate maximum requirements for each position;

and DOT cautions descriptions may not coincide in every respect with content of jobs

as performed in specific establishments or localities).

We conclude the Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole, and the judgment is affirmed.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2085 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2006 Entry ID: 2050442