rising from his chair and grimacing could not be reconciled with any evidence of record. (Tr. 168).
Lastly, plaintiff contends that the government failed to meet its burden of establishing that plaintiff cannot work at any substantial gainful activity. This Court rejects plaintiff's contention in light of a vocational expert's testimony at the hearing. Even though an individual cannot perform his former occupation, an individual is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act only if his work skills cannot be used in any other gainful employment. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A). A vocational expert is used to determine whether a claimant's work skills can be used in other work and to determine the specific occupations in which they can be used. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(e).
Dr. Jennings, the vocational expert, was asked a detailed hypothetical question based on the totality of the evidence of record. He stated that Mr. Stracciolini would be able to perform unskilled light work in a repetitious job such as checker, marker, and sorter. This was possible even if claimant could lift less than five pounds, only walk two or three blocks at one time and sit between fifteen and thirty minutes at one time. The vocational expert testified that these jobs all permit plaintiff to change his position from sitting to standing at will and that those jobs existed in significant numbers in the local economy. (Tr. 218-221).
This case is ultimately decided under the Social Security Administration Medical and Vocational Regulations, 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. These regulations consider a claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education and past work experience. The medical evidence demonstrated plaintiff could perform less than a full range of sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) (Tr. 172). However, it was found claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform the physical, exertional and non-exertional requirements of work. The plaintiff was only prohibited from lifting greater than five pounds at one time, walking or standing for prolonged intervals and concentrating on complex duties. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 416.945. Considering claimant's 41 years of age (20 C.F.R. § 404.1563 and 416.963), his marginal education (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564 and 416.964), the inability to perform his past relevant work as a truck driver, and his present ability to perform jobs such as checker or sorter, plaintiff's medical and vocational characteristics fit within Rules 201.18 - 201.29 of Table No. 1. This conclusion directs a finding of one not disabled within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f) and 416.920(f). This ruling subsequently became the Secretary's final decision.
This Court finds that the Secretary's final decision is supported by such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." See supra, Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401, 91 S. Ct. at 1427. Accordingly, it was not error to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income as plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
An appropriate Order follows.
AND NOW, this day of June, 1986, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 13) and Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 14), it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED and Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. Judgment is entered for Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.