Opinion ID: 2994140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vocational Evidence

Text: The Agency has the burden of providing evidence of a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant could perform. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987); Knight, 55 F.3d at 312. Powers claims that the hearing officer erred in relying on Janikowski’s expert testimony in finding that there were more than 40,000 jobs in the regional economy that someone could perform with Powers’ vocational and physical profile. Powers contends that Janikowski’s testimony was unclear as to whether the 40,000 jobs included a sit/stand option and whether they matched Powers’ skill level. However, a review of the expert’s testimony shows that Janikowski was asked expressly for jobs that included a sit/stand option and matched Powers’ skill level. To argue now that the expert’s testimony was unclear ignores the express limitation in the hearing officer’s questions to the expert that clearly stated the conditions under which the opinion was to be expressed. Powers relies heavily on Social Security Ruling 83-12, which states that unskilled types of jobs are particularly structured so that a person cannot ordinarily sit or stand at will. Yet Janikowski was asked the number of jobs that did have a sit/stand option, so this Agency description of what the case is ordinarily does not refute, by itself, the opinion of an expert in response to a specific question. Even if Janikowski’s testimony were considered to contradict the description of sedentary work in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which we do not believe it does, a hearing officer is entitled to rely on expert testimony that contradicts such authorities. See Young v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 957 F.2d 386, 391-92 (7th Cir. 1992). Therefore, substantial evidence supported the finding that a significant number of jobs existed that could accommodate Powers’ skill level and physical needs.