Kelly P. v. Kijakazi

2 Citing cases

  1. Steven L. W. v. O'Malley

    C. A. 1:23-1837-SVH (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2024)

    See ECF No. 10 at 6, 8-9 (citing Lett v. Saul, C/A No. 18-164-B, 2019 WL 13218820, at *10 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 20, 2019) (noting the plaintiff had cited no authority to support his “conflat[ion of] the operation of hand controls with handling and fingering,” that the DOT was silent as to the frequency of operation of hand controls, and that “courts ha[d] uniformly held that the fact that the DOT does not address a particular requirement or limitation does not suggest the existence of a conflict between the DOT and the VE's testimony”); Kelly P. v. Kijakazi, C/A No. 2:20-14535, 2023 WL 5321033, at *16-17 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2023) (finding no conflict between the RFC limitations and the DOT and explaining that the applicable regulations distinguish exertional limitations related to strength demands, such as pushing and pulling, from nonexertional limitations that include manipulative functions such as handling and that the SCO distinguishes hand controls as relating to strength or exertional abilities from manipulative functions such as handling and fingering); Orlando P. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., C/A No. 21-20186, 2022 WL 17820348, at *8 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2022) (finding operation of hand controls to be an exertional, as opposed to a manipulative, limitation and that the VE's response to the hypothetical question did not conflict with the DOT).

  2. Frank L. v. Kijakazi

    Civ. 22-06506 (GC) (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2023)

    As the ALJ provided substantial evidence as to why he arrived at his residual functional capacity decision following the evaluation of objective medical evidence, the ALJ did not err in his residual functional capacity determination. See Kelly P. v. Kijakazi, Civ. No. 20-14535, 2023 WL 5321033, at *21 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2023) (finding that the ALJ properly discredited objective medical evidence when it was contradicted by other objective medical evidence in the record).