Opinion ID: 517299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Existence of Work Which Miller Could Perform

Text: 16 Claimant argues that he is unable to do the sitting required by sedentary clerical work. This argument appears to be predicated upon a misconception of the law as it relates to the performance of sedentary work. Miller argues that at most he can sit six hours in a work day. However, it is not a requirement of being able to do sedentary work that one must be able to endure unrelieved sitting, standing or walking. If the job allows for intermittent alteration of position then it is within the range of claimant's residual functional capacity for sedentary work. Here, the VE testified that at least four thousand such jobs existed in the region. In the original administrative proceedings, the Secretary concluded that Miller could do sedentary and light work which permitted intermittent changes of position. The district court did not reverse this assessment of Miller's capacity; rather, the parties agreed that, given this capacity, the Secretary should have obtained vocational expert testimony and not simply relied on the grids. Accordingly, the district court remanded the case so such vocational evidence could be obtained. On remand, the Secretary obtained expert testimony that identified sedentary jobs Miller could do given his need for intermittent changes in position. 17 AFFIRMED.