Opinion ID: 1427531
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: ALJ's Step Five Analysis

Text: Finally, Stubbs-Danielson argues the ALJ failed to meet his step five burden of identifying specific jobs which she could perform for at least three reasons: (a) the ALJ's hypothetical was incomplete; (b) the ALJ did not identify specific jobs the claimant could perform; (c) the Vocational Expert's (VE's) testimony was inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DICOT) and the ALJ's hypothetical question. In arguing the ALJ's hypothetical was incomplete, Stubbs-Danielson simply restates her argument that the ALJ's RFC finding did not account for all her limitations because the ALJ improperly discounted her testimony and the testimony of medical experts. As discussed above, we conclude the ALJ did not. We similarly find Stubbs-Danielson's claim that the ALJ did not identify specific jobs unpersuasive. The VE testified that someone with Stubbs-Danielson's limitations could perform small product assembly jobs at the sedentary level and packaging and sorting jobs existing in significant numbers. Such a description is sufficiently specific to identify jobs that match Stubbs-Danielson's abilities. Indeed, several assembly or sorting occupations in the DICOT correspond to Stubbs-Danielson's limitations. See DICOT §§ 713.687-018, 734.687-018, 521.687-086. Accordingly, we disagree with Stubbs-Danielson's claim that the VE's testimony was inconsistent with the DICOT and the ALJ hypothetical.