Roberta L. K. B. v. Bisignano
- John Docherty
- 0:25-cv-02612
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Roberta L. K. B. v. Bisignano, Judge Docherty affirmed the denial of disability benefits, finding the vocational expert’s testimony supported the decision.
Roberta L. K. B., whose denial of disability insurance benefits remains in effect, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
In Roberta L. K. B. v. Bisignano, Roberta L. K. B. asked the court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly relied on a vocational expert’s testimony about jobs she could perform while using a cane.
The vocational expert identified marking clerk, routing clerk, and copy machine operator as jobs available to a person with the limits described by the administrative law judge. The expert testified that the jobs could be performed even though the person would use a cane while walking. Roberta L. K. B. argued that these jobs required using both hands and that the testimony was unreliable.
Judge Docherty ruled that the vocational expert gave a reasonable explanation for the difference between his testimony and the occupational information relied on by the Social Security Administration. The court denied Roberta L. K. B.’s requested relief, granted the Commissioner’s requested relief, and affirmed the benefits decision.
The detailed version
- Roberta L. K. B. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-02612
- John F. Docherty
- Sept. 21, 2026
Background
Roberta L. K. B. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. She alleged back problems, chronic back pain, a back injury from a 2006 car accident, and arthritis. After an administrative hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that she had severe impairments involving degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and obesity, but that she was not disabled.
The ALJ found that Roberta L. K. B. could perform a limited range of light work. The restrictions included lifting or carrying specified amounts, standing or walking for up to four hours in an eight-hour workday, sitting for up to six hours, limited climbing and postural activities, no exposure to unprotected heights or moving machinery, and using a cane when walking. The ALJ found that she could not perform her past relevant work but could perform other work in the national economy.
At the hearing, vocational expert David Perry, Ph.D., identified marking clerk, routing clerk, and copy machine operator as jobs that a person with the stated limitations could perform. He testified that the jobs had approximately 100,000, 110,000, and 10,000 positions nationally, respectively. He stated that his testimony was consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), except that the DOT did not address cane use. He based his testimony about cane use on his training and experience and testified that the identified jobs did not require handling or fingering with both hands while standing or walking.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Roberta L. K. B. argued that the ALJ failed to resolve an inconsistency between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT concerning the need for two-handed use in the identified jobs. She also argued that the testimony was unreliable because the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO) describes reaching as extending the hand or hands and arm or arms in any direction, and because the identified jobs allegedly require handling or fingering with both hands.
She also submitted three exhibits containing Occupational Requirements Survey data. The court did not consider those exhibits because the data had not been submitted to the ALJ or the Appeals Council, and Roberta L. K. B. did not show that the evidence was material or that good cause justified not presenting it earlier.
Court’s Analysis
Because the ALJ’s decision was issued before January 6, 2025, the court applied Social Security Ruling 00-4p. That ruling required the ALJ to ask about consistency between vocational-expert testimony and the DOT, obtain a reasonable explanation for any apparent unresolved conflict, and explain how the conflict was resolved.
The court concluded that the ALJ met those requirements. The ALJ asked whether the vocational expert’s testimony was consistent with the DOT. The vocational expert identified the cane-use issue as the only exception, explained that his conclusion was based on his training and experience, and answered questions from Roberta L. K. B.’s attorney about how cane use affected hand use. The court found that explanation reasonable and noted that Social Security Ruling 00-4p recognizes reliance on a vocational expert’s experience as a reasonable explanation.
The court also rejected the argument that the SCO necessarily requires bilateral, or two-sided, reaching. It interpreted the SCO’s use of “hand(s)” and “arm(s)” as allowing use of one hand or arm or both. The court further determined that the DOT descriptions for the three identified jobs did not explicitly require bilateral handling or fingering. The court found that the vocational expert’s testimony about modernized job practices and cane use supported the ALJ’s conclusion.
Ruling
The court concluded that the vocational expert’s testimony was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that Roberta L. K. B. could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. It held that the ALJ did not commit legal error by relying on that testimony.
The court ordered that:
- The relief requested in Roberta L. K. B.’s brief was DENIED.
- The relief requested in the Commissioner’s brief was GRANTED.
- The Commissioner’s final decision was AFFIRMED.
Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.