Opinion ID: 1363066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opportunity to Cross-Examine Vocational Expert or Question the ALJ

Text: Hoopai contends that he was improperly denied the opportunity to cross-examine a vocational expert or question the ALJ as to alternative jobs available in the economy. Hoopai relies on Burkhart to support this contention. In Burkhart, the ALJ speculated, without reference to any source, that the claimant could do `yard and lawn maintenance' or be a `watchman or security monitor.' Burkhart, 856 F.2d at 1341. He added that even taking into account the claimant's non-exertional limitations, there are hundreds of jobs left which Mr. Burkhart can do. Id. We determined that these speculations were based on information outside of the record and that therefore Burkhart was effectively deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine a witness or rebut testimony. Id. Burkhart is distinguishable from the present case. In this case, the ALJ relied on the grids and determined that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that accommodate the claimant's residual functional capacity. Since the claimant's non-exertional limitations did not significantly erode the occupational base of jobs that Hoopai could perform, he concluded that there was a significant number of jobs available. The ALJ did identify three specific jobs that were available, relying on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. However, this source, which is a part of the grids, was part of the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569. Therefore, the claimant was not entitled to question the ALJ on the alternative jobs available.