No. 95-1904

 

Carol A. Jones, *

*

 Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

 v. * District Court for the

 * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Shirley S. Chater, *

Commissioner of the *

Social Security Administration, *

*

 Appellee. *

 

Submitted: November 15, 1995

 Filed: December 18, 1995

 

Before BEAM, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

 

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

1992, citing a fractured ankle, arthritis, and low back pain. After a

hearing at which a vocational expert testified, an administrative law judge

denied Ms. Jones's application for benefits. In mid-1994, Ms. Jones sued

in federal district court in Iowa for judicial review of that decision.

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The district court affirmed the decision of the administrative law

judge. See Jones v. Shalala, 887 F. Supp. 210 (S.D. Iowa 1995). Ms. Jones

appeals, arguing that the vocational expert's conclusions about three of

the four jobs that Ms. Jones could allegedly do failed to take into account

the physical restrictions
 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District

1

Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

applicable to her and that, with respect to the fourth job, the scarcity

of such positions in the local economy precludes a finding that such

positions are available to her. We affirm the judgment of the district

court.1

I.

The administrative law judge found that Ms. Jones had the residual

functional capacity to lift 15 pounds maximum and 10 pounds repeatedly

(Ms. Jones does not challenge that finding). Assuming those facts (and

others not relevant for the purposes of this opinion), the vocational

expert testified that Ms. Jones could perform "less than a full range" of

"unskilled light or sedentary work" but would be able to work as a hand

packager (500 jobs available in Iowa), a production assembler (900 jobs

available in Iowa), a telephone answering service operator (250 jobs

available in Iowa), or a food order clerk (200 jobs available in Iowa).

Ms. Jones notes, correctly, that the positions of hand packager and

production assembler described in the reference book that the vocational

expert was using (the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, published by the

U.S. Department of Labor) are characterized as medium work (requiring

lifting of 20 to 50 pounds occasionally) and light work (requiring lifting

of up to 20 pounds occasionally), respectively. Ms. Jones argues that the

vocational expert's testimony should be disregarded, therefore, since it

conflicts with that reference book with respect to the lifting capabilities

required. We disagree.

The vocational expert specifically declared, as to those two

positions, that the particular numbers of jobs he was citing were only

those that could be characterized as sedentary ("[i]f you're
-3-

looking strictly at light [work], the numbers would be considerably

higher"). The reference book itself warns, in its introduction, that the

job characteristics for each position "reflect[] jobs as they have been

found to occur, but ... may not coincide in every respect with the content

of jobs as performed in particular establishments or at certain

localities." In other words, in our view, the reference book gives the

approximate maximum requirements for each position, rather than their

range. 

Because the vocational expert specifically limited his opinion to

reflect sedentary work only (requiring lifting of up to 10 pounds

occasionally), his testimony was a perfectly acceptable basis for the

administrative law judge's conclusions. See, e.g., Bates v. Chater, 54

F.3d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 1995); see also Montgomery v. Chater, No. 95-1387,

slip op. at 7 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 1995) (vocational expert may testify in

conflict with reference book with respect to particular jobs that may vary

under certain circumstances from descriptions in the reference book), and

Whitehouse v. Sullivan, 949 F.2d 1005, 1006 (8th Cir. 1991) ("the ALJ

specifically asked the expert to assume a job applicant with [plaintiff's]

age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity ... the

ALJ could properly assume that the expert framed his answer based on the

factors the ALJ told him to take into account"). Smith v. Shalala, 46 F.3d

45 (8th Cir. 1995), on which Ms. Jones relies, is not to the contrary. In

that case, there is no indication that the vocational expert limited his

opinion in any way. See id. at 47.

II.

At the very least, then, there was sufficient evidence for the

administrative law judge to conclude that Ms. Jones could meet the job

requirements for some positions as a production assembler. Since Ms. Jones

does not argue that the number of such jobs available in Iowa is legally

insignificant, we affirm the judgment
-4-

of the district court. Because of our conclusion in that regard, we need

not address Ms. Jones's other arguments.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.