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 judg e denied Ms. Jones's ap plication 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 la w judge. See Jones v. Shalala , 887 F. Supp. 210 (S.D. Iowa 1995). Ms. Jone s appeals, arguing that the vocational expert's conclusions about three of the four jobs that Ms. Jones could allegedly do failed to take into accoun t the physical restrictions

### The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2- applicable to her and that, with respect to the fourth job, the scarcity of s uch positions in the local economy precludes a finding that suc h positions are available to her. We affirm the judgment of the distric t court. 1

I. The admi nistrative law judge found that Ms. Jones had the residua l functional capacity to lift 15 pounds maximum and 10 pounds repeatedl y (Ms. Jones does not challenge that finding). Assuming those facts (an d others not relevant for the purposes of this opinion), the vocationa l expert testified that Ms. Jones could perform "less than a full range" of "unskil led light or sedentary work" but would be able to work as a han d pac kager (500 jobs available in Iowa), a production assembler (900 job s availa ble in Iowa), a telephone answering service operator (250 job s 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. D epartment of Labor) are characterized as medium work (requirin g lifting of 20 to 50 pounds occasionally) and lig ht 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 capabilitie s required. We disagree.

The vocational expert specifically declared, as to those tw o posit ions, that the particular numbers of jobs he was citing were onl y those that could be characterized as sedentary ("[i]f you're

### -3-

lookin g strictly at light [work], the numbers would be considerabl y higher"). The refere nce book itself warns, in its introduction, that the job characteristics for each position "reflect[] jobs as they have bee n found to occur, but ... may not coincide in ever y respect with the content of job s as performed in particular establishments or at certai n localitie s." In other words, in our view, the reference book gives th e approxi mate maximum requirements for each position, rather than thei r range.

Becau se the vocational expert specifically limited his opinion t o refle ct sedentary work only (requiring lifting of up to 10 pound s occasi onally), his testimony was a perfectly acceptable basis for th e adm inistrative law judge's conclusions. See , e.g. , Bates v. Chater , 5 4 F.3d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 1995); see also Montgome ry v. Chater , No. 95-1387, slip op . at 7 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 1995) (vocational expert may testify i n conflict with reference book with respect to par ticular jobs that may vary under certain circums tances from descriptions in the reference book), and Whitehouse v. Sullivan , 949 F.2d 1005, 1006 (8th Cir. 1991) ("the AL J specifically asked the expert to assume a job ap plicant 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.3 d 45 (8th Cir. 1995), on which Ms. Jones relies, i s 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 th e admin istrative law judge to conclude that Ms. Jones could meet the jo b requirements for some positions as a production assembler. Since Ms. Jone s 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.