Buchanan v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Jeffrey Scott Buchanan appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying him disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Buchanan moved to reverse the administrative law judge’s decision and remand the case for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner opposed that motion and asked for summary judgment affirming the decision.

Legal standard

The court explained that it may reverse an administrative law judge’s decision only if the decision lacks substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

The dispute concerned the fifth and final step of the disability evaluation. At that step, the Commissioner must show that a significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). An administrative law judge may rely on a vocational expert’s testimony about available work. If that testimony conflicts obviously or apparently with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the judge must ask the expert to explain the conflict before relying on the testimony.

The alleged conflicts

The administrative law judge found that Buchanan should avoid hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous, moving, and heavy machinery, and could not perform fast-paced work such as assembly-line work. Based on that RFC, the vocational expert identified hand packager, floor waxer, and laboratory equipment cleaner as jobs Buchanan could perform.

The court rejected Buchanan’s argument that the hand packager job obviously conflicted with his inability to perform fast-paced work. The DOT says that hand packagers perform “any combination” of listed duties, including starting, stopping, and regulating conveyor speed. The court understood that language to mean that conveyor-related tasks are not necessarily required of every hand packager. The DOT’s reference to either high-production or small-lot packaging also did not show that every hand packager job is high-production work.

The court also found no obvious or apparent conflict between the RFC’s hazard limitation and the floor waxer job. Although the DOT lists frequent exposure to “Other Environmental Conditions” for that job, the court concluded that it was not clear that this description involved the kinds of hazards barred by Buchanan’s RFC.

The court did find an obvious conflict concerning laboratory equipment cleaner work. The DOT describes that job as requiring occasional exposure to toxic, caustic chemicals, while Buchanan’s RFC included a limitation against exposure to hazards, including toxic, caustic chemicals. The administrative law judge therefore erred by failing to have the vocational expert address that conflict.

Harmless error and ruling

The court nevertheless held that the error was harmless, meaning it did not affect the ultimate decision. The vocational expert identified approximately 111,000 floor waxer positions, 27,000 laboratory equipment cleaner positions, and 72,000 hand packager positions nationally. Even excluding the laboratory equipment cleaner positions, the floor waxer and hand packager jobs totaled approximately 183,000 positions. The court concluded that this was a significant number of jobs under the fifth-step requirement.

The court held that the administrative law judge committed no reversible error. Judge Edward J. Davila denied Buchanan’s motion for reversal and remand, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision.