Artis S. v. Kijakazi
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:20-cv-01504
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Artis S. v. Kijakazi, Judge Menendez denied Artis S.’s summary-judgment motion and granted the Commissioner’s.
Artis S. and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; the ruling resolved Artis S.’s challenge concerning the vocational expert’s job testimony.
What happened
Artis S. v. Kijakazi concerned whether the administrative judge properly relied on a vocational expert’s testimony that Artis S. could perform cashier, administrative support clerk, and sorter jobs.
Artis S. argued that the testimony conflicted with job descriptions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles because his work limitations barred bilateral use of hand controls. The court found no apparent conflict because those job descriptions did not state that the jobs required bilateral hand controls.
Judge Menendez denied Artis S.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Acting Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Artis S. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:20-cv-01504
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 15, 2021
Background
The court considered the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and held a hearing on September 8, 2021. The case involved whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly relied on a vocational expert’s (VE’s) testimony at the fifth step of the Social Security disability evaluation process. At that step, the Acting Commissioner had to show that significant numbers of jobs existed that a person with Artis S.’s residual functional capacity (RFC)—the person’s work-related limitations—could perform.
The VE testified that a person with Artis S.’s RFC could work as a cashier, administrative support clerk, or sorter. Artis S. argued that this testimony conflicted with the job descriptions in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and its Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO). The RFC included a limitation against work requiring bilateral use of hand controls.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that there was no apparent conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT or SCO descriptions. Although those descriptions stated that the three jobs required frequent handling, they did not indicate that the jobs required bilateral use of hand controls. The court also rejected Artis S.’s argument that specific DOT coding digits showed such a requirement.
The court determined that the discussion between the ALJ and the VE about twisting, turning, gripping, and grasping did not create a conflict. The ALJ had clarified that the RFC did not prohibit reaching, handling, fingering, or use of the extremities generally; it only limited bilateral use of hand controls.
The court distinguished decisions in which vocational testimony conflicted with job descriptions requiring frequent or constant reaching, while the claimants’ RFCs limited them to occasional overhead reaching. Here, the DOT and SCO said nothing about bilateral hand controls. Because the court found no conflict, it held that the VE did not need to provide an explanation for one.
Disposition
The court denied Artis S.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Katherine Menendez ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.