Alicia P. v. Bisignano

Background

Alicia P. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s December 20, 2023 decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Alicia P. was not disabled because, considering her residual functional capacity (RFC), age, education, and work experience, she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

A prior administrative decision had included a restriction limiting Alicia P. to understanding, remembering, and carrying out one- to two-step instructions. After a prior related proceeding, the Appeals Council vacated that decision and instructed the ALJ to obtain additional vocational-expert evidence addressing the effect of the claimant’s limitations on available work. The Appeals Council also consolidated Alicia P.’s original and later applications.

In the decision challenged here, the ALJ assessed a revised RFC allowing Alicia P. to understand, remember, and carry out simple tasks; have occasional interaction with the public and coworkers; and manage occasional changes in a routine work setting. Based on vocational-expert testimony, the ALJ identified copy examiner, document preparer, and touch-up inspector as jobs Alicia P. could perform.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed whether the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate. Alicia P. argued that the ALJ failed to comply with the Appeals Council’s remand order. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review that alleged failure because the Appeals Council had expressly considered and rejected the argument when it denied review of the ALJ’s decision. The court therefore recommended denying relief on that issue.

Alicia P. also argued that the vocational expert’s testimony was unreliable because the document-preparer and copy-examiner occupations were obsolete. Regarding document preparer, the court explained that later Social Security Administration guidance requiring additional evidence for that occupation had not been issued when the hearings and ALJ decision occurred. The court also concluded that the guidance did not declare document preparer wholly obsolete. Because Alicia P. did not challenge the vocational expert’s estimate during the administrative proceedings or provide contrary evidence, the court found no error in relying on the estimate of approximately 21,000 document-preparer jobs.

Regarding copy examiner, the court rejected reliance on an out-of-record Wikipedia article as a basis for overturning the ALJ’s decision. The vocational expert relied on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and professional experience, and the court found no error in relying on that testimony. The court further concluded that, even excluding document preparer and copy examiner, the approximately 21,000 touch-up-inspector jobs were a significant number of jobs in the national economy. It therefore found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Alicia P. was not disabled.

Recommendation and procedural status

Judge Dulce J. Foster recommends that Alicia P.’s request for relief be DENIED, that the Commissioner’s request for relief be GRANTED, and that the action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The document is a report and recommendation rather than a final order or judgment of the District Court. The notice states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that written objections may be filed within 14 days after service.