Imad W. v. Kijakazi

Background

Imad W. sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for supplemental security income. He had applied for benefits based on diabetes, sleep apnea, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, high blood pressure, and arthritis. After a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that his impairments did not prevent him from working. The Appeals Council denied review.

The ALJ determined that Imad W. could not perform his past relevant work but could perform three other occupations: production assembler, laundry worker, and packing line worker. The ALJ relied on testimony from Bob Zadow, a vocational expert, who identified approximately 435,000 production-assembler jobs, 895,000 laundry-worker jobs, and 735,000 packing-line-worker jobs nationally.

Issues

Imad W. challenged the ALJ’s step-five findings. He argued that Zadow’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which described the three occupations as requiring some English-language ability, while the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding stated that Imad W. could not read, speak, or understand English. He also argued that Zadow’s testimony about the number of available jobs, by itself, was insufficient.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an ALJ must ask a vocational expert whether the expert’s testimony conflicts with the DOT and must obtain a reasonable explanation for any conflict. Zadow acknowledged the conflict concerning English-language ability. He explained that his opinion was based on his experience as a vocational consultant and that employers commonly use interpreters or speakers of the worker’s language for training. He testified that English would not be necessary to perform the cited jobs after the worker learned the tasks.

The court held that this was a reasonable explanation. The DOT describes the maximum requirements of occupations as generally performed, while a vocational expert may provide more specific information about how jobs are performed in particular settings. The ALJ was therefore permitted to credit Zadow’s testimony over the DOT. The court also found that the ALJ adequately explained the resolution of the conflict in her written decision by acknowledging the conflict, crediting Zadow’s experience, and finding that the cited jobs could be performed within the stated limitations.

The court also rejected the challenge to the number of jobs. It concluded that the ALJ considered the relevant evidence, including the claimant’s limitations, the reliability of the testimony, the types and availability of work, and the job numbers provided by the vocational expert. The identified occupations represented more than two million jobs nationally, and the court found substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that work existed in significant numbers.

Disposition

Judge Hildy Bowbeer granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court found no error in the ALJ’s decision and left the denial of supplemental security income in place.