Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marsha S. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability beginning October 25, 2019. After her applications were denied, an administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision in February 2024. The Appeals Council vacated that decision because the finding that she could perform her past work as a claims adjuster was inconsistent with the assessed limitation concerning detailed instructions.
On remand, the ALJ held another hearing and obtained testimony from a different vocational expert. The ALJ reclassified Marsha S.’s past relevant work as Claims Clerk I, assessed an RFC for a restricted range of sedentary work that included use of a cane, and found that she could perform the claims-clerk job both as actually and generally performed. After the Appeals Council denied review, she sought judicial review, challenging the treatment of her symptoms and obesity, the vocational evidence, and the fairness of the remand proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. It held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s RFC assessment and that the ALJ properly considered Marsha S.’s vertigo, medication side effects, chronic pain, depression, and alleged problems with concentration, persistence, pace, and attendance. The ALJ was entitled to find that the medical and other evidence did not support additional limitations for absenteeism or concentration.
The court also held that the ALJ complied with SSR 00-4p. Because the Dictionary of Occupational Titles does not address cane use, the vocational expert’s testimony that a person with the assessed RFC could work as a claims clerk did not directly conflict with the DOT. The ALJ appropriately relied on the expert’s professional experience regarding limitations absent from the DOT. The court further concluded that the ALJ adequately considered obesity under SSR 19-2p and that the claimant received a full and fair hearing; using a different vocational expert, revising the RFC, and reclassifying her past work after the prior decision was vacated did not establish bias or misconduct.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant’s symptoms did not require additional RFC restrictions for absenteeism or concentration, persistence, and pace.
- The DOT’s silence about cane use did not create a conflict with vocational-expert testimony requiring further resolution under SSR 00-4p.
- An ALJ may reassess the RFC and past relevant work after the Appeals Council vacates an earlier decision, and unfavorable revised findings alone do not establish bias or denial of due process.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential scope of judicial review in Social Security cases: a court will not reweigh symptom evidence when the ALJ applies the proper standards and supports the RFC with substantial evidence. It also distinguishes an actual inconsistency with the DOT from a subject the DOT simply does not address.
The opinion further confirms that a vacated administrative decision does not bind the ALJ on remand. Changes to vocational classifications or RFC findings must be evaluated on the record supporting the final decision, not treated as evidence of misconduct merely because they differ from the vacated ruling.