* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, UnitedStates 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 LUN GSTRUM, ** District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral1 Although Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, has been

substituted for Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Heal th and Human Services, as the defendant in this action, in the text we continue t o refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the un derlying decision. -2- argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Fae Turner appeals from an order of the d istrict court affirming the Secretary’s 1 determination that she is not entitled to disabili ty benefits. “We review the Secretary's decision to determine whethe r her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record vie wed as a whole and whether she applied the correct legal standards. Substanti al evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequ ate 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 compl icated by retinopathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gout, osteoarthritis, migraines, and fatigue. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determ ined 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 sedentarywork. On appeal, Ms. Turner contends that this determinat ion 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 residua l 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 th e ALJ used this faulty VE testimony to form the basis of his decision. We address Ms. Turner’s contention that, despite th e 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 Dictiona ry 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 contradict ion is present here. The DOT contains an explanation that occupational i nformation provided only "reflects jobs as they have been found to occu r, but they may not coincide in every respect with the content of jobs as performedin 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 speci fic jobs.” Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revis ed Dictionary of Occupational Titles , at xi (1993). Consequently, “an occupation found to have certain characteristics in job situations observed by the e mployment service does not-4-

necessarily preclude the same occupation from havin g 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 t elephone answering service operator job was performed at a level requi ring skills. He merely limited the receptionist jobs he was considering for Ms. Tu rner 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 w ork.” 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