Opinion ID: 3061737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Peeler’s Claim

Text: Here, Dr. Feldman described the jobs of toll collector, bench assembler and over fifty percent of cashier II jobs as sedentary. The DOT classifies these three jobs as light work. See Dep’t of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”),§§ 211.462-010 (cashier II), 211.462-038 (toll collector), 706.684-022 (bench assembler) (rev. 4th ed. 1991). The ALJ did not err in relying on Dr. 7 Feldman’s testimony even if it conflicted with information in the DOT because under our precedent Dr. Feldman’s testimony trumps the DOT. See Jones, 190 F.3d at 1229-30. Peeler points to Social Security Ruling 00-4p (“SSR 00-4p”), which provides that “[n]either the DOT nor the [VE’s testimony] automatically ‘trumps’” when there is a conflict between the two and instructs the ALJ to “elicit a reasonable explanation for the conflict before relying on the VE [testimony] . . . .” SSR 00-04p, 2000 WL 1898704 (Dec. 4, 2004). However, as to cashier II jobs, ALJ complied with SSR 00-4p and obtained a reasonable explanation for any conflict with the DOT.6 When Dr. Feldman identified cashier II jobs as sedentary jobs Peeler could perform, the ALJ confirmed that Dr. Feldman’s testimony adhered to the descriptions in the DOT. Dr. Feldman then acknowledged that the jobs were “listed as light in the DOT” and explained that it was his opinion that over fifty percent of the cashier II jobs could be performed at the sedentary level. Dr. Feldman further explained that any discrepancy between his description and the DOT was based on his knowledge and 6 Our predecessor Court has concluded that Social Security Rulings are not binding on this Court. See B.B. v. Schweiker, 643 F.2d 1069, 1071 (5th Cir. Unit B Apr. 1981). We are bound by decisions issued by Unit B panels of the former Fifth Circuit. Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982). However, even in the absence of our Jones precedent, the ALJ did not err in relying on Dr. Feldman’s testimony because, as we explain, the ALJ complied with SSR 00-04p with regard to the cashier II jobs. 8 necessary because the DOT does not describe specific jobs, but conglomerations of jobs. Notably, SSR 00-4p supports Dr. Feldman’s explanation, stating that the DOT provides descriptions about occupations, not each of the numerous jobs represented in an occupation and that a VE “may be able to provide more specific information about jobs or occupations than the DOT.” SSR 00-4p.7 The ALJ posed a hypothetical question to Dr. Feldman that included all of Peeler’s impairments. In response, Dr. Feldman identified work that existed in the national economy that someone like Peeler could perform. The ALJ did not commit legal error in relying upon Dr. Feldman’s testimony even if it conflicted with the DOT. Thus, Dr. Feldman’s testimony constituted substantial evidence that Peeler was not disabled. See Jones, 190 F.3d at 1229. AFFIRMED. 7 Social security regulations permit the ALJ to rely on a VE for his expertise and knowledge. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.960(b)(2) (stating that the a VE “may offer relevant evidence within his or her expertise or knowledge”). Dr. Feldman’s resume indicates that he has experience as a vocational rehabilitation counselor and vocational evaluator. Peeler did not challenge Dr. Feldman’s qualifications as a VE at the administrative hearing. 9