BRATCHER v. KIJAKAZI

Filing 22

ORDER ACCEPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 20 , is accepted and adopted, over the Plaintiff''s objections, as this Court's opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 01/19/2023. (rcb)

Case 4:22-cv-00206-MW-MJF Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
LINDA BRATCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 4:22cv206-MW/MJF

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 20, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections,
ECF No. 21.
Plaintiff raises one issue; namely, that the ALJ failed to resolve the conflict
between the VE testimony and the evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s “explosives
worker” job, as she actually performed it, involved the use of machinery. The VE
testified that, having considered Plaintiff’s vocational information, Plaintiff’s
“explosives worker” job as performed and testified to would still be available.
Plaintiff notes that the ALJ’s RFC finding limited Plaintiff to “avoid concentrated
exposure to pulmonary irritants such as fumes, odors, dust, gases, and poorly
ventilated areas, . . . moving machinery, and hazardous machinery.” ECF No. 21 at

Case 4:22-cv-00206-MW-MJF Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 3

1–2 (emphasis added). Plaintiff asserts that because record evidence described
Plaintiff’s job as “operat[ing] machinery used in production process[,] examin[ing]
products to verify conformance to quality standards[,] count[ing] finished products
to determine if product orders were completed,” and that the job “required the use
of ‘machines, tools or equipment,’ ” the ALJ had a duty to resolve the dispute as to
whether Plaintiff’s job, as she actually performed it, required concentrated exposure
to moving or hazardous machinery. But the duty to resolve conflicts that Plaintiff
identifies addresses only apparent unresolved conflicts between VE evidence and
the DOT, not VE evidence and record evidence regarding Plaintiff’s job as she
actually performed it. Nor does there appear to be an apparent conflict between
Plaintiff’s limitation to avoid concentrated exposure to moving or hazardous
machinery and her job description evidence noting that she operated or used
machines.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 20, is accepted and adopted, over
the Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment
stating, “The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

2

Case 4:22-cv-00206-MW-MJF Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 3

405(g).” The Clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED on January 19, 2023.
s/Mark E. Walker
____
Chief United States District Judge

3