Opinion ID: 1197436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DISCUSSION VE's Prior Contact With Claimant

Text: Wright-Hines argues the ALJ erred in relying on the testimony of a state VE who had prior contact with Wright-Hines. The premise of this argument is mistaken, as the ALJ never presented a hypothetical question to the VE or heard any other testimony from the VE. Rather, the ALJ noted that a written report from the VE was consistent with his conclusion that Wright-Hines was capable of performing past relevant work as a cashier. Moreover, the ALJ was not required to solicit testimony from a VE in reaching his conclusion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(2) (We may use the services of vocational experts ... to help us determine whether you can do your past relevant work[.]) (emphasis added); see also Griffeth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 217 Fed.Appx. 425, 429 (6th Cir.2007) (The regulations permit an ALJ to use the services of a vocational expert at step four to determine whether a claimant can do his past relevant work, given his RFC.) (emphasis added). Thus, Wright-Hines' argument is unavailing.