* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 12/13/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

FAE TURNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-4048

(D.C. No. 94-CV-1093)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM,** District

Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
1 Although Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, has been

substituted for Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the

defendant in this action, in the text we continue to refer to the Secretary because

she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying decision.

-2-

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Fae Turner appeals from an order of the district court affirming

the Secretary’s1 determination that she is not entitled to disability benefits. “We

review the Secretary's decision to determine whether her factual findings are

supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole and whether

she applied the correct legal standards. Substantial evidence is such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 

Castellano v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir.

1994)(citations and quotation omitted).

Ms. Turner claimed disability due to diabetes complicated by retinopathy,

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gout, osteoarthritis, migraines, and

fatigue. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined at step five of the

five-step sequential process, see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th

Cir. 1988), that Ms. Turner could perform sedentary work.

On appeal, Ms. Turner contends that this determination is in error because

the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert (VE) did not contain all of her
-3-

credible impairments, she does not have the residual functional capacity required

for sedentary work, she has no transferable skills which are required for the jobs

the VE identified as ones she could perform, and the ALJ used this faulty VE

testimony to form the basis of his decision.

We address Ms. Turner’s contention that, despite the fact that the VE

determined she had no transferable skills, the jobs he identified as ones she could

perform are defined as skilled jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles

(DOT). She maintains that the DOT controls when a VE’s testimony contradicts

it, citing to Campbell v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 1518, 1523 n.3 (10th Cir. 1987). We 

agree with the district court that, even should Ms. Turner be correct that the DOT

controls when a contradiction exists, no contradiction is present here.

The DOT contains an explanation that occupational information provided 

only "reflects jobs as they have been found to occur, but they may not coincide in

every respect with the content of jobs as performed in particular establishments or

at certain localities.” Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Vol. I, at xiii (4th ed.

1991). The DOT shows generally what is required of workers, “not what

individual workers are expected to perform on specific jobs.” Selected

Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational

Titles, at xi (1993). Consequently, “an occupation found to have certain

characteristics in job situations observed by the employment service does not
-4-

necessarily preclude the same occupation from having different characteristics in

other job situations.” Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir.

1994)(quotation omitted).

Here the VE did not state that no receptionist or telephone answering

service operator job was performed at a level requiring skills. He merely limited

the receptionist jobs he was considering for Ms. Turner to those positions which

were unskilled. He further identified the type of work a receptionist in an

unskilled position would perform, i.e., duties of “answering the phone, greeting

the public, and not doing the secretarial kind of work.” R. at 172. No error is

present.

We have examined Ms. Turner’s remaining arguments. After careful

review of the record on appeal and consideration of the parties' briefs, we

conclude no reversible error occurred. The judgment of the United States District

Court for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge