Opinion ID: 2982351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dictionary of Occupational Titles

Text: Dyer briefly argues that the vocational expert’s testimony was inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Specifically, Dyer contends that the descriptions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles of the jobs identified by the vocational expert all require the ability to remember and carry out “detailed” instructions, but the hypothetical given by the administrative law judge specified that the job requirements entail only “simple” instructions. The administrative law judge asked the vocational expert at the hearing if her testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and she answered yes. Dyer’s counsel did not object or otherwise ask for any clarification or follow up to this single question about the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and no further discussion occurred. See Lindsley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 2009) (where the administrative law judge has already fulfilled his obligation to ask the vocational expert whether his testimony conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, the judge need not independently investigate conflicts in vocational expert’s testimony not brought to the judge’s attention). In any event, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles defines the jobs assigned to persons with Dyer’s educational level (a General Equivalency Diploma) to require the ability to “[a]pply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions [and to deal] with problems involving a few concrete variables in or from standardized - 10 - No. 13-6024, Dyer v. Soc. Sec. Admin. situations.” Dictionary of Occupational Titles 706.684-030. Dyer cites no authority to demonstrate that this definition is inconsistent with the hypothetical given to the vocational expert that stated that Dyer was capable of understanding, remembering and carrying out simple instructions. We concede that the phrase “detailed but uninvolved” is confusing, but it does not contradict the hypothetical. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. - 11 -