Tanesha L. v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Tanesha L. applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits in May 2019, alleging that she had been disabled since September 1, 2015. The Social Security Administration denied the application initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Angela Banks denied the application on November 4, 2020. The Appeals Council denied review on June 24, 2021, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The administrative law judge found that Tanesha L.’s degenerative joint disease and systemic lupus erythematosus were severe impairments. The judge determined that she could perform sedentary work with several restrictions, including occasional postural activities, no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, use of a hand-held assistive device in one hand for all walking, and no work in bright light or sunlight. Because she had no past relevant work, the judge relied on vocational-expert testimony that she could perform jobs such as document preparer, order clerk, and charge account clerk, which existed in significant numbers in the national economy.

Arguments and Analysis

Tanesha L. challenged the administrative law judge’s step-five finding that she could perform other work. First, she argued that the vocational expert’s testimony about using a hand-held device conflicted with the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles and the definition of sedentary work.

The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was silent about cane use, so there was no actual conflict. The court also held that, even if there was an apparent conflict between the vocational testimony and the job requirements, the administrative law judge satisfied the duty to investigate it. The vocational expert was specifically questioned about the hand-held device, testified that its use would not prevent performance of the representative jobs, and explained that the opinion was based on her education and experience in vocational rehabilitation.

Second, Tanesha L. argued that the administrative law judge failed to include her restriction against working in bright light or sunlight in the questions presented to the vocational expert. The court found that the judge had posed a hypothetical containing that restriction, and the vocational expert testified that a person with that limitation could perform the representative jobs.

The court understood Tanesha L.’s remaining argument to challenge the residual functional capacity finding itself. She contended that her light sensitivity should have prevented work involving computers or digital screens. The court found that the administrative law judge had reviewed the evidence concerning her vision problems, found her retinopathy and migraines to be non-severe impairments, and recognized the light sensitivity caused by her migraines. Because Tanesha L. identified no objective evidence showing that those findings were unsupported, the court found no error.

Disposition

The court granted the Commissioner judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the case. It directed the Clerk to enter final judgment and close the file. Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones applied the substantial-evidence standard, under which the court reviews whether relevant evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision and whether the correct legal standard was used; the court does not decide disability anew.