Court Opinion

ID: 9469279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:36:16.955842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:18.556287
License: Public Domain

CORNELIA G. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the critical question in the instant case is whether there is substantial evidence from which the AU and the Secretary could conclude that claimant’s skills as a crane hook operator were transferable to more sedentary occupations. Since I feel that there was such evidence, I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion fails to consider the evidence supplied by the vocational expert, Dr. Fotiu, who specifically testified that given claimant’s problem with his hands the availability of substantial gainful employment depended on the extent of the claimant’s manual handicaps. After witnessing the experiment alluded to in the majority opinion, Dr. Fotiu concluded that there were jobs claimant could perform and that his hand problems did not prevent his job skills from being transferable.
Since the AU could consider the vocational expert’s testimony, I think there was substantial evidence to support his determination and would affirm the judgment denying benefits.