Opinion ID: 149580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jobs To Which the VE Testified Kyle Could Transfer Were Consistent With the DOT

Text: Kyle does not state in what way the VE's opinion of transferable jobs contradicted the DOT. The implication from the argument is that there is a conflict because the jobs do not truly fit into Kyle's past job experience. For example, Kyle argues that the description of the DOT supervisor position suggested (incinerator-plant-general supervisor of production), and the inspection job (group leader, semiconductor testing) contradicted, what the VE stated were applicable to Kyle. However, this is not a conflict of the type anticipated by SSR 00-4p. See Lindsley, 560 F.3d at 605-07; Austin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2010 WL 1170630, at  (N.D.Ohio Mar. 23, 2010) (where ALJ relies on testimony of the VE that conflicts with DOT, ALJ must elicit a reasonable explanation; however, mere fact that VE identifies an occupation not described by DOT is not a conflict as DOT contains information about most, but not all, occupations). The VE acknowledged that these industries were not laminate industry position, but in his professional opinion, Kyle could perform them. Further, even if a conflict existed, the ALJ inquired properly if the VE's testimony was consistent with the DOT and was given a response in the affirmative. Therefore, the ALJ met her obligation under SSR 00-4p and there was no error relying on the positions the VE offered.
For all of the reasons set forth above, this Court AFFIRMS the judgment of the district court.