Elizabeth M. v. Bisignano

Background

Plaintiff Elizabeth M. applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) on January 3, 2023, at age 37, alleging a disability onset date of January 5, 2022. She claimed various conditions including chronic pain syndrome, possible multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder, and depression. She had prior work experience as a bank customer service representative and two years of college education.

The Social Security Administration denied her application initially and on reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on March 12, 2024, at which Plaintiff was represented by counsel and vocational expert (VE) Pamela Nelligan testified. The ALJ issued a decision on May 14, 2024, denying benefits.

ALJ's Five-Step Analysis

The Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential process to determine disability. The ALJ found:

- Step 1: Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date. - Step 2: Plaintiff had several severe impairments including fibromyalgia, obesity, thoracic degenerative disc disease, empty sella syndrome, anxiety, bipolar disorder (depressed type), post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. - Step 3: None of her impairments met or equaled a listed presumptively disabling condition. - Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): The RFC is the most a claimant can do despite her limitations. The ALJ found Plaintiff capable of sedentary work (the least physically demanding category) with numerous restrictions, including: only occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; no exposure to vibration, unprotected heights, or moving mechanical parts; moderate noise levels only; ability to carry out detailed but not complex instructions; only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public; and use of a four-point cane for walking. - Step 4: Plaintiff could not return to her past relevant work. - Step 5: Based on VE Nelligan's testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform three occupations: sorter (40,000 national jobs), document preparer (15,000 national jobs), and appointment clerk (140,000 national jobs), and therefore was not disabled.

The Appeals Council denied review, and Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 18, 2025.

Standard of Review

The court's review is limited to whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence — meaning more than a mere scintilla, and such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. Under Social Security Ruling (SSR) 00-4p (which applied because the ALJ's decision pre-dated its December 6, 2024 rescission), if a conflict exists between a VE's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) — the standard reference for job descriptions — the ALJ has an affirmative duty to identify, resolve, and explain the resolution of that conflict.

Analysis of the Three Occupations

Document Preparer (DOT# 249.587-018)

Plaintiff argued this job is obsolete, citing Social Security Administration guidance (EM-24027 REV) that imposes heightened evidentiary requirements before an ALJ may cite it. At the hearing, VE Nelligan explained that while the DOT references microfiche technology, the job is currently performed using scanners, and that her testimony was based on professional experience and job placement knowledge. The ALJ accepted this explanation.

The court rejected Plaintiff's two counter-arguments. First, Plaintiff claimed Nelligan must have confused the document preparer job with the semi-skilled microfilm camera operator job because a document preparer does not capture images — but the court noted the DOT description does contemplate image reproduction via photocopying machine, and Plaintiff offered no explanation why using a scanner requires materially more skill than a photocopier. Second, Plaintiff challenged Nelligan's job count estimate (15,000) as based on an outdated DOT description via a database called Job Browser Pro, but the court found Nelligan testified she relied on multiple sources including Bureau of Labor Statistics data and the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS), and Plaintiff produced no counterevidence showing the estimate was inaccurate. The court affirmed the ALJ's finding on document preparer.

Appointment Clerk (DOT# 237.367-010)

Plaintiff argued this job conflicts with her RFC because it requires frequent talking and hearing — defined by SSR 83-10 as occurring from one-third to two-thirds of the workday — while her RFC limits her to only occasional interaction with others (up to one-third of the time).

The Commissioner argued there is potential overlap at precisely one-third of the time, making the positions compatible. The court rejected this reasoning, finding the argument unpersuasive. Citing a comparable Eighth Circuit case, Page v. Astrue, the court found that nominal overlap at the extreme ends of two ranges does not resolve a conflict, and does not support a finding that 140,000 such jobs exist that Plaintiff can perform. The ALJ had an affirmative duty to resolve this conflict and failed to do so. The court found the ALJ's reliance on Nelligan's testimony regarding the appointment clerk job was erroneous.

Sorter (DOT# 209.687-022)

Plaintiff argued the sorter job is classified in the DOT as semi-skilled (SVP level 3), requiring more than 30 days to learn, which would place it beyond Plaintiff's reach since the ALJ found the transferability of skills from her past work was not material to the analysis. Unskilled work corresponds to SVP 1-2 under Social Security rules.

The court found this conflict was adequately resolved. VE Nelligan testified that although the DOT classifies the sorter job as semi-skilled with an SVP of 3, based on her professional experience with job placement, the position can actually be learned in under 30 days — effectively making it unskilled. The court noted that SSR 82-41 expressly encourages reliance on vocational expert testimony to resolve questions about job learning time. The court also rejected Plaintiff's attempt to characterize Nelligan's testimony as self-contradictory based on Job Browser Pro's semi-skilled classification, finding that Plaintiff's counsel's question to Nelligan on this point was unclear, and Nelligan's non-committal response was not a definitive representation that no conflict existed. The court affirmed the ALJ's finding on sorter.

National Job Numbers and Final Determination

Having struck the appointment clerk position (140,000 jobs) but affirmed document preparer (15,000 jobs) and sorter (40,000 jobs), the court assessed whether the remaining 55,000 representative jobs constitute a "significant number" in the national economy — the legal threshold at step five. The court found 55,000 jobs significant, noting that courts in this district and elsewhere generally draw the line around 20,000 jobs. Because the remaining two occupations alone satisfy the legal standard, the court found the ALJ did not err in concluding Plaintiff is not disabled, and that the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

The court affirmed the ALJ's decision in part, denied Plaintiff's request for relief, granted the Commissioner's request for relief, and dismissed the case with prejudice.