Elizabeth M. v. Bisignano

Background

The plaintiff, identified only as Elizabeth M. pursuant to the District of Minnesota's policy of anonymizing nongovernmental parties in Social Security matters, applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) on January 3, 2023. She was 37 years old at the time, had two years of college education, and had previously worked as a bank customer service representative. She alleged a disability onset date of January 5, 2022, based on conditions including chronic pain syndrome, possible multiple sclerosis (later ruled out and attributed to fibromyalgia), bipolar disorder, and depression.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied her application initially and on reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on March 12, 2024, where Plaintiff was represented by an attorney. Vocational Expert (VE) Pamela Nelligan also testified. The ALJ issued a decision denying benefits on May 14, 2024.

ALJ's Sequential Evaluation

The SSA uses a five-step process to evaluate disability claims. At step one, the ALJ found the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ found she had severe impairments including fibromyalgia, obesity, thoracic degenerative disc disease, empty sella syndrome, anxiety, bipolar affect (depressed type), post-traumatic stress disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Multiple sclerosis was ruled out; urinary incontinence was found not medically determinable. At step three, the ALJ concluded none of her impairments met or equaled the SSA's Listing of Impairments (a catalog of presumptively disabling conditions).

The ALJ then assessed her residual functional capacity (RFC) — the most work she can do despite her limitations. He found she could perform sedentary work with numerous restrictions, including: only occasional climbing of ramps/stairs; never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, and crouching; never crawling; no exposure to vibration, unprotected heights, or moving mechanical parts; no more than moderate noise; only detailed but not complex instructions; only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public; and use of a four-point cane for walking.

At step four, the ALJ found she could not perform her past relevant work. At step five, relying on VE Nelligan's testimony, the ALJ found she could perform three jobs existing in significant numbers nationally: sorter (DOT# 209.687-022, 40,000 jobs), document preparer (DOT# 249.587-018, 15,000 jobs), and appointment clerk (DOT# 237.367-010, 140,000 jobs). The ALJ concluded she was not disabled.

The Appeals Council denied review. The plaintiff then filed this federal lawsuit challenging only the ALJ's step-five reliance on the VE's testimony.

Legal Standard

The court's review is limited to whether the ALJ's decision is supported by "substantial evidence" — more than a mere scintilla, meaning such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. If two inconsistent positions can be drawn from the evidence and one matches the ALJ's finding, the court must affirm. Under SSR 00-4p (applicable here because it was in effect when the ALJ issued his decision, though later rescinded), when a VE's testimony conflicts with the DOT, the ALJ must identify and resolve the conflict and explain its resolution.

Analysis of the Three Disputed Jobs

Document Preparer

The plaintiff argued the document preparer job is obsolete. SSA guidance (EM-24027 REV) establishes heightened requirements before an ALJ may cite this occupation, because the DOT description references outdated technology (microfilming). The VE testified that the job now uses scanners rather than microfiche equipment and that her estimate of 15,000 available positions was based on professional experience, Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) data, and Job Browser Pro — not solely on Job Browser Pro.

The court rejected the plaintiff's challenge on two grounds. First, the plaintiff's contention that document preparers did not generate or capture document images was factually wrong — the DOT itself describes using a photocopying machine to reproduce document pages, and the plaintiff failed to explain how using a scanner is materially more demanding than using a photocopier. Second, the plaintiff's challenge to the job number estimate was unsupported — the VE relied on multiple data sources, and the plaintiff offered no counter-evidence showing the estimate was inaccurate. The court affirmed the ALJ's findings on document preparer.

Appointment Clerk

The plaintiff argued that the appointment clerk job, which the DOT describes as requiring frequent talking and hearing ("frequent" meaning up to two-thirds of the workday), conflicts with her RFC limitation to only occasional interaction with others ("occasional" meaning up to one-third of the workday).

The Commissioner argued that because "occasional" ends at one-third and "frequent" begins at one-third, there is an overlap at precisely one-third of the time, making the positions theoretically compatible.

The court rejected this argument as unpersuasive. Even if some appointment clerk jobs might exist at the very lowest end of the "frequent" range, that does not justify crediting an estimate of 140,000 available positions the plaintiff could perform. The court found the plaintiff's RFC limitation — rooted in mood symptoms and panic attacks — plainly conflicts with a job requiring frequent interaction with clients to schedule appointments. The ALJ failed to identify and resolve this apparent conflict as required by SSR 00-4p. The court found the ALJ's reliance on VE testimony regarding the appointment clerk job was erroneous.

Sorter

The plaintiff argued that the sorter job is classified as semi-skilled in the DOT (SVP level 3), which would require transferable skills she did not have. The ALJ had already found that transferability of skills was "not material" to the analysis.

The VE testified, however, that despite the DOT's semi-skilled classification, the sorter job could be learned in under 30 days based on her professional experience. Under SSA rules, jobs learnable in 30 days or less are treated as unskilled. The court found this testimony adequately resolved the conflict between the VE's opinion and the DOT classification. The plaintiff's argument that the VE needed to specifically testify about placing individuals with the plaintiff's exact RFC in that job was rejected — no such requirement exists. The plaintiff's challenges based on Job Browser Pro classifying the job as semi-skilled were also rejected: the plaintiff's counsel's question to the VE on this point was confusing and the VE's non-committal answer was not a definitive representation that no conflicts existed. The court affirmed the ALJ's findings on sorter.

Sufficiency of Remaining Jobs

Having found two of the three jobs valid (sorter: 40,000 jobs; document preparer: 15,000 jobs), and one invalid (appointment clerk), the court assessed whether 55,000 total jobs constitutes a "significant number" in the national economy. The court found — consistent with prior decisions in this district drawing the line at roughly 20,000 jobs — that 55,000 jobs is significant. Accordingly, the court concluded the ALJ did not err in finding the plaintiff not disabled, and that the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

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