Welsh v. Colvin, No. 13-2619 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed the denial of his application for Social Security disability and supplemental security income benefits. The court concluded that the ALJ's failure to explicitly refer to SSR 96-9p was an arguable deficiency in opinion writing that had no practical effect on the decision and therefore was not a sufficient reason to set aside the ALJ's decision; the ALJ posed a hypothetical that accurately reflected his residual functioning capacity (RFC) finding, questioned the vocational expert (VE) about any apparent inconsistencies with the relevant DOT job descriptions, explained his decision to credit the VE's testimony, and, therefore, the ALJ complied with SSR 00-4p; and substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that a sufficient number of jobs existed in the national and local economies that a person with plaintiff's RFC could perform, based on the VE's testimony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - Social Security. Failure to mention Social Security Rule 96-9p governing situations where the claimant could perform less than the full range of sedentary work was an arguable deficiency of opinion writing by the ALJ but the ALJ properly consulted the VE and the analysis performed complied with the Rule; when the ALJ poses a hypothetical that accurately reflects his RFC finding, questions the VE about any apparent inconsistencies within the relevant DOT job descriptions, and explains the decision to credit the VE's testimony, the ALJ has complied with relevant Social Security Ruling (00-4p), and the decision is reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard; the ALJ did not err in finding there were a significant number of jobs claimant could perform.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.