AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION*fn1
Evel John Ortiz (the "Claimant") appeals to the District Court from a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying Claimant‟s claim for benefits. See Doc. No. 1. Claimant alleges that the Administrative Law Judge (the "ALJ") erred by: 1) offering an "inherently inconsistent" residual functional capacity assessment ("RFC"); 2) failing to obtain the testimony of a vocational expert ("VE") when determining there was other work that Claimant can perform; 3) failing to consider Claimant‟s back condition in the RFC; 4) relying on testimony from the VE without inquiring whether that testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the "DOT"); and 5) failing to consider the side-effects of Claimant‟s medications. Doc. No. 21 at 1-15. Claimant requests that the Commissioner‟s final decision be reversed and remanded for an award of benefits. Doc. No. 21 at 15. For the reasons more fully discussed below, the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
On June 7, 2007, Claimant applied for disability benefits alleging an onset of disability as of May 1, 2006, due to manic depressive disorder, high blood pressure, kidney disease, and pain.
R. 52, 56, 113-125, 174. Claimant‟s application was denied initially and upon reconsideration.
R. 49-56. On August 19, 2009, a hearing was held before ALJ Gerald Murray. R. 24-48. Claimant and a VE testified at the hearing. R. 24.
At the hearing, the ALJ first received testimony from the VE regarding Claimant‟s past relevant work. R. 26-29. The VE testified that Claimant‟s past relevant work includes the following: 1) a motel desk clerk, DOT number 238367038, which is classified by the DOT as being light work, semi-skilled; and 2) a reservations clerk, DOT number 238367038, which is classified by the DOT as sedentary work, semi-skilled. R. 27. Thus, the VE testified that Claimant‟s past relevant work is semi-skilled. R. 27.*fn2 After the Claimant testified, the ALJ did not pose any hypothetical questions to VE or inquire of the VE regarding any other work. R. 29-48. Accordingly, the ALJ did not receive any testimony regarding whether there was any other work that exists in the national or regional economy that Claimant could perform.
On September 24, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision finding Claimant not disabled. R. 9-23. The ALJ made the following significant findings:
1. The [C]laimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 1, 2006, the alleged onset date;
2. The [C]laimant has the following severe impairments: diabetes mellitus and associated fatigue, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, morbid obesity, and bipolar disorder;
3. The [C]laimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments;
4. [T]he [C]laimant has the [RFC] to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that the [C]laimant is limited to unskilled or skilled work;
5. The [C]laimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a motel desk clerk (DOT #238.367-038, light, svp 4) and reservation clerk (DOT #238.367-018, sedentary, svp 3). This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the [C]laimant‟s [RFC];
6. In the alternative, considering the [C]laimant‟s age, education, work experience, and [RFC], there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the nation economy that the [C]laimant can also perform; and
7. The [C]laimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from May 1, 2006 through the date of this decision.
R. 9-23 (emphasis added). Thus, the ALJ determined that Claimant has the RFC to perform light work, except that Claimant is limited to "unskilled or skilled work." R. 14.*fn3
At step-four, the ALJ found, based on the VE‟s testimony, that Claimant‟s past-relevant work includes a motel desk clerk and a reservation clerk, which the ALJ acknowledged are semi-skilled jobs. R. 21. The ALJ then found that: "[i]n comparing the [C]laimant‟s [RFC] with the physical and mental demands of this work . . . the [C]laimant is able to perform it as actually and generally performed." R. 21. Thus, the ALJ found that based upon Claimant‟s RFC, he is capable of performing his past-relevant, semi-skilled work. R. 22.
In the alternative to his decision that the Claimant is capable of performing his past-relevant work, at step-five, the ALJ states:
Although the [C]laimant is capable of performing past relevant work, there are other jobs existing in the national economy that he is also able to perform. Therefore, the [ALJ] makes the following alternative findings for step five of the sequential evaluation process. . . .
In determining whether a successful adjustment to other work can be made, the [ALJ] must consider the [C]laimant‟s [RFC], age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. . . . If the [C]laimant can perform all or substantially all of the exertional demands at a given level of exertion, the medical-vocational rules direct a conclusion of either "disabled" or "not disabled" depending upon the [C]laimant‟s specific vocational profile. When the [C]laimant cannot perform substantially all of the exertional demands of work at a given level of exertion and/or has non-exertional limitations, the medical-vocational rules are used as a framework for decisionmaking unless there is a rule that directs a conclusion of "disabled" without considering the additional exertional and/or non-exertional limitations. If the [C]laimant has solely non-exertional limitations, section 204.00 in the Medical-Vocational Guidelines provides a framework for decision making.
If the [C]laimant had the [RFC] to perform the full range of light work, considering the [C]laimant‟s age, education, and work experience, a finding of "not disabled" would be directed. . . . However, the additional limitations have little or no effect on the occupational base of unskilled light work. A ...