Robert Battle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

2 Opinion of the Court 25-14365

I.

In May and June of 2021, Battle submitted applications to the Social Security Administration for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. He pegged his disability-onset date to February 28, 2021, and identified three conditions that limited his ability to work: congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The Social Security Administration denied his applications and rejected his request for reconsideration. After holding a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge evaluated Battle's applications using the Social Security Administration's five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The ALJ found, at the first three steps, that Battle had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 28, 2021, that he suffered from the severe impairments of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and obesity, and that none of his impairments, alone or in combination, met the requisite severity to trigger an automatic disability finding. At step four, the ALJ determined that Battle had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, so long as that work does not involve exposure "to hazards such as unprotected heights and hazardous machinery." In the last part of that analysis, the ALJ drew on a vocational expert's testimony to find that Battle was

"able to perform his past work as a security guard as actually and generally performed." So the ALJ determined that Battle was not disabled, and as a result, not entitled to benefits.

2

25-14365 Opinion of the Court 3 After the Appeals Council denied Battle's request to review the ALJ's decision, Battle filed this action in federal court. He argued that the benefits denial must be reversed because the ALJ failed to resolve a conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the listing for security guard in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which is published by the Department of Labor. The district court rejected that argument and affirmed. This is Battle's appeal.

II.

When an ALJ denies benefits and the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denies review, "we review the ALJ's decision as the Commissioner's final decision." Rodriguez v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 118 F.4th 1302, 1315 (11th Cir. 2024). "Our review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the correct legal standards were applied." Walker v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 987 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2021). We review de novo "both the Commissioner's legal conclusions, and the district court's decision about whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence." Id. (citation omitted).

III.

Battle primarily challenges the ALJ's decision at step four:

that he had the residual functional capacity to perform his past

3

4 Opinion of the Court 25-14365 relevant work as a security guard.¹At that step, the ALJ considers the claimants residual functional capacity and whether he can still engage in "past relevant work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant is capable of performing past work, he is deemed not disabled. Id. To make this determination, the ALJ consults the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and testimony from vocational experts. See Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir. 2018).

Neither source, however, "automatically trumps" the other when they conflict. Buckwalter v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 5 F.4th 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2021). So when a vocational expert testifies about a job's requirements, the ALJ has an "affirmative duty" to identify—and then resolve—any "apparent" conflicts between that testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington,

906 F.3d at 1362. A conflict is "apparent" when it is "ascertainable or evident, i.e., when it is seemingly real or true, but not necessarily so." Viverette v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 13 F.4th 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2021) (alteration adopted and quotations omitted). And an "ALJ's

4

25-14365 Opinion of the Court 5 failure to discharge this duty means a decision is not supported by substantial evidence." Buckwalter, 5 F.4th at 1321. Here, the ALJ found that Battle had the residual functional capacity to perform "light work," subject to these limitations:

[H]e can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; he should never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; he can have only

occasional exposure to extremes of cold, extremes of heat, and atmospheric conditions, i.e., dusts, odors, fumes, and pulmonary irritants; and he should have no exposure to hazards such as unprotected heights and hazardous machinery.

At Battle's hearing, the vocational expert identified four potential occupations that a hypothetical person with Battle's limitations could perform: security guard, assembler, bakery worker, and counter clerk. So the ALJ, drawing on that testimony, concluded that Battle could perform his past relevant work as a security guard. Battle argues that the ALJ failed to resolve a conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. He is incorrect; no apparent conflict exists. Battle's residual functional capacity limits his exposure to "hazards such as unprotected heights and hazardous machinery." That is consistent with the security guard listing in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which explicitly states that neither exposure to moving mechanical parts nor high exposed places exists on the job. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles §§ 372.667-038 (4th ed. 1991).

5

6 Opinion of the Court 25-14365 Resisting this simple conclusion, Battle points out that the security guard listing contemplates occasional exposure to other environmental conditions. See id. And by following a path of definitions in a companion publication, he says that "other environmental conditions" may include "patrolling assigned beat to prevent crime or disturbance of peace and being subjected to bodily injury or death from law violators." U.S. Dep't of Labor, Selected Characteristics of Occupations, App'x D (4th ed. 1993). Because his residual functional capacity limits his exposure to hazards, the argument goes, there is an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the security guard listing in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

No—we fail to see any apparent conflict. The security guard listing in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles itself contemplates duties like patrolling "to protect persons or property" and apprehending "unauthorized persons," so no surprise there. Dictionary of Occupational Titles §§ 372.667-038. Like the district court, we are unpersuaded by Battle's efforts to stretch the hazards limitation in his residual functional capacity and to identify a conflict through a "rabbit trail of definitions" in the Department of Labor publications.²Because there was no apparent conflict for the

6

25-14365 Opinion of the Court 7 ALJ to resolve, we reject his challenge to the Commissioner's decision to deny his applications for benefits. * * *

We AFFIRM the district court's judgment.

7