Cooper v. SSA Commissioner

Background

Robert Monroe Cooper appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Cooper asked the court to reverse the administrative law judge’s decision and send the case back for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner opposed Cooper’s motion.

The administrative law judge decided on October 24, 2023, that Cooper was not disabled. The judge found that Cooper had a residual functional capacity for light work, with limits including standing and walking for four hours total in an eight-hour workday, frequently climbing ramps and stairs, occasional exposure to certain hazards, no moderate exposure to extreme temperatures, and a requirement to stand or walk for five minutes after sitting for three hours.

Based on that capacity, a vocational expert testified that Cooper could perform his past relevant work as a van driver. The administrative law judge concluded that Cooper could perform that job as he had actually performed it.

Issue and legal standard

The dispute concerned the fourth step of the Social Security disability process: whether a claimant can perform past relevant work despite the claimant’s limitations. The court may reverse the administrative law judge’s decision only if it lacks substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as enough to support the conclusion.

Cooper argued that the administrative law judge failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles’ description of the van-driver position. Cooper relied on Social Security Ruling 00-4p and identified this as the issue for review.

Court’s analysis

The court distinguished between evaluating past work as the claimant actually performed it and evaluating how that work is generally performed in the national economy. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles can provide evidence about how work is generally performed. But when the administrative law judge evaluates the claimant’s past work as actually performed, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles is irrelevant.

Because the administrative law judge expressly found that Cooper could perform his past van-driver work as he actually performed it, the court held that the judge was not required to resolve conflicts between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Disposition

The court DENIED Cooper’s motion. The order is titled “Order Denying Social Security Appeal,” and the court concluded that the administrative law judge was not required to resolve the alleged conflict. The opinion also notes that the Social Security Administration rescinded Social Security Ruling 00-4p on January 6, 2025, but the court’s stated reasoning relied on the distinction between work as actually performed and work as generally performed.