Bohn v. Astrue

8 Citing cases

  1. Hernandez Hernandez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    6:20-cv-461-DCI (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    With 31, 000 jobs in the national economy for that occupation, a number that Claimant does not challenge or describe as insignificant, the VE's testimony provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ's step-five determination. See Atha v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 616 Fed.Appx. 931, 934-35 (11th Cir. 2015) (finding that 23, 800 jobs nationally is significant); see also Bohn v. Astrue, 2013 WL 494059, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) (“[E]ven if there had been an error with respect to [certain jobs], that error would be harmless since [one] job alone supports the law judge's finding that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform.”). Note that every job identified by the VE in Washington was in apparent conflict whereas here the document preparer occupation does not conflict with Claimant's inability to communicate in English.

  2. Johnson v. Saul

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-01111-B (S.D. Ala. Mar. 18, 2021)

    However, this error is potentially harmless, provided that the other identified job of floor attendant supports the ALJ's step five finding.See, e.g., Bohn v. Astrue, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16927, at *18, 2013 WL 494059, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) ("[E]ven if there had been an error with respect to the jobs of ticket seller and parking lot cashier, that error would be harmless since the photograph finisher job alone supports the law judge's finding that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform."). Social Security regulations provide that "[w]ork exists in the national economy when there is a significant number of jobs (in one or more occupations) having requirements which [the claimant is] able to meet with [his or her] physical or mental abilities and vocational qualifications."

  3. Koorathota v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Case No: 6:19-cv-2150-Orl-LRH (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, the ALJ's failure to explain his implicit rejection of Dr. Ames-Dennard's opinion that the Claimant is limited to understanding and remembering simple one and two-step tasks is harmless since he ultimately found the Claimant was capable of performing a job that did not require more, i.e., the floor waxer position. See, e.g., Bohn v. Astrue, No. 8:12-cv-354-T-TGW, 2013 WL 494059, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) ("[E]ven if there had been an error with respect to [certain jobs], that error would be harmless since [one] job alone supports the law judge's finding that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform."). In light of the foregoing, the Court rejects the Claimant's sole assignment of error.

  4. White v. Saul

    CASE NO. 19-CV-61745-WILLIAMS/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    the cafeteria attendant and mail room clerk jobs. See, e.g., Zeh v. Saul, No. 8:18-cv-1608-T-SPF, 2019 WL 4233765, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2019) (noting that the court need not discuss whether ALJ erred in not addressing apparent conflict between limitation to simple, routine, repetitive tasks and jobs requiring reasoning level 2 and 3 because the VE also identified a reasoning level 1 job that claimant could perform); Bishop v. Berryhill, No. 2:17-CV-620-FtMDNF, 2019 WL 851415, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2019) ("In this case, the Court need not determine whether the VE's testimony that a claimant limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks can perform work requiring an RSL of 2 because the VE identified a significant number of jobs that require only a reasoning level of 1."); see also Tellier v. Colvin, No. 3:15-CV-663-J-JBT, 2016 WL 7438048, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2016) (concluding that error was harmless because two occupations provided 68,000 jobs in the national economy); Bohn v. Astrue, No. 8:12-CV-354-T-TGW, 2013 WL 494059, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) (affirming administrative decision where one job alone supported ALJ's finding). --------

  5. Jules v. Berryhill

    CASE NO. 18-CV-60963-VALLE (S.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, even if the ALJ erred in concluding that Plaintiff could perform the jobs of kitchen helper and cleaner II, the error is harmless since the jobs of bagger and merchandise deliverer support the ALJ's finding at Step 5 that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.See, e.g., Tellier v. Colvin, No. 3:15-CV-663-J-JBT, 2016 WL 7438048, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2016) (concluding that error was harmless because two occupations provided 68,000 jobs in the national economy); Bristol v. Colvin, No. 1:11CV959-WC, 2013 WL 2147476, at *3 (M.D. Ala. May 15, 2013) (finding an ALJ error at Step 4 harmless because the ALJ went on to Step 5 and identified other jobs within the national economy that plaintiff could perform); Bohn v. Astrue, No. 8:12-CV-354-T-TGW, 2013 WL 494059, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) (affirming administrative decision where one job alone supported ALJ's finding). Indeed, limitations to extreme cold/heat, and wetness and/or humidity are "not present" in the jobs of bagger and merchandise deliverer.

  6. English v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    CASE NO.: 8:17-CV-604-T-23MAP (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2018)

    These jobs exist in substantial numbers in the national economy and are within the Plaintiff's identified limitations. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983) (finding ALJ error is harmless when it does not impact the determination of disability); Bohn v. Astrue, case no. 8:12-cv-354-T-TGW, 2013 WL 494059, *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) ("[E]ven if there had been an error with respect to [certain jobs], that error would be harmless since [one] job alone supports the law judge's finding that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform."); Shultz v. Colvin, case no. 8:12-cv-108-T-EAJ, 2013 WL 12167537, *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2013) ("Thus, any error is harmless because the ALJ's determination is still supported by substantial evidence as the VE identified at least one job that Plaintiff could perform."). The Plaintiff also claims the ALJ erred by failing to exclude the VE testimony altogether since he made a patently false statement about the contents of the DOT by incorrectly testifying that GED levels are never higher than SVP levels.

  7. Washington v. Berryhill

    Case No. 4:17cv382-CAS (N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983); Burgin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 420 F. App'x. 901, 903 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (applying the harmless error doctrine to social security cases). The vocational expert testified to, and the ALJ correctly identified, at least one job existing in substantial numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform that did not typically require bilateral dexterity.SeeHoelck v. Astrue, 261 F. App'x 683, 687 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (any error in mentioning other jobs not testified to by the vocational expert harmless where ALJ correctly identified one job Hoelck could perform); Bohn v. Astrue, No. 8:12-cv-354-T-TGW, 2013 WL 494059, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) ("[E]ven if there had been an error with respect to [certain jobs], that error would be harmless since [one] job alone supports the law judge's finding that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform."); Schultz v. Colvin, No. 8:12-cv-108-T-EAJ, 2013 WL 12167537, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2013) (unpublished) ("Thus, any error is harmless because the ALJ's determination is still supported by substantial evidence as the VE identified at least one job that Plaintiff could perform.") (citing McLain v. Astrue, No. 8:06-cv-2156-T-TBM, 2008 WL 616094, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2008)); Tellier v. Colvin, No. 3:15-cv-663-J/JBT, 2016 WL 7438048, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2016) (unpublished) (same). The Eleventh Circuit has stressed that because an ALJ's finding as to the existence of a sufficient quantity of jobs is a finding of fact reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, the Court "could not reweigh the evidence or 's

  8. Davis v. Colvin

    Case No. 3:14-cv-1108-J-JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2016)

    The ALJ's error, therefore, is harmless. See Bohn v. Astrue, No. 8:12-CV-354-T-TGW, 2013 WL 494059, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) (stating that "even if there had been an error with respect to the jobs of ticket seller and parking lot cashier, that error would be harmless since the photograph finisher job alone supports the law judge's finding that there are jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that the plaintiff can perform"). B. The ALJ's Evaluation of Treating Physician Dr. Pennick's Opinion