Trest v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 9/8/2015. (AS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

JULIE TREST
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-302-CWR-FKB

CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Commissioner, United States Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Keith F. Ball. Docket No. 14. After reviewing Plaintiff Julie Trest’s complaint along with her
Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 9, and Defendant’s Motion to Affirm
Commissioner’s Decision, Docket No. 11, Judge Ball recommended denying summary judgment
and affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Trest objected. Docket No. 15.
The undersigned has considered Trest’s objection. In it, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how
she was unlawfully prejudiced by the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to deny her
claim of disability. The Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and must
be affirmed. Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2007). The ALJ utilized testimony of
the vocational expert in determining that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to
perform light work and therefore was not disabled. The argued discrepancies in the vocational
expert’s testimony regarding jobs Plaintiff was able to perform and the Dictionary of
Occupational Title’s (“DOT”) description of job level demands are immaterial. See Carey v.
Apfel, 230 F.3d 131, 146 (5th Cir. 2000) (reasoning that the majority of circuits agree that “the
ALJ may rely upon the vocational expert’s testimony provided that the record reflects an
adequate basis for doing so”). The standardized job information listed in the DOT is advisory

and not binding on the ALJ. See id. ([A]ll kinds of implicit conflicts are possible and the
categorical requirements listed in the DOT do not and cannot satisfactorily answer ever such
situation.”). Furthermore, as the Magistrate Judge concludes, the Court is not persuaded that the
facts of this case present a true conflict between the DOT and the vocational expert’s testimony,
as both limit her performance capability to unskilled work, which entails simple and routine
tasks. See Docket No. 14, at 6. The assigned reasoning level of 2 is consistent with these
limitations.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the findings and conclusions in the Report and
Recommendation as this Court’s own. The Plaintiff’s Motion [9] for Summary Judgment is
denied and Defendant’s Motion [11] for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner is
granted.
A separate Final Judgment will issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of September, 2015.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2