«UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Wendi Carlson, Civil No. 06-3289 (ADM/SRN) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Michael J. ...»
CASE 0:06-cv-03289-ADM-SRN Document 17 Filed 06/27/07 Page 22 of 23 As previously noted, the VE accounted for Plaintiff’s age in recommending the jobs of gate guard, checker, and room service clerk. Thus, the mere fact that her range of work is less than the range of work for younger individuals does not automatically mean she is disabled.
Finally, Plaintiff characterizes the VE’s testimony as ambiguous. In addition to the gate guard, checker, and room service clerk positions, the VE considered whether Plaintiff could work as a parking lot cashier or machine tender. Ultimately, the VE did not recommend those occupations because those jobs are “the kinds of work that would either fall within [the hypothetical question] or come close to it and that would, I think, require some additional inspection.” (Tr. at 424.) Plaintiff misconstrues this testimony as also applying to the gate guard, checker, and room service clerk positions, but the transcript of the testimony is clear that the VE did not qualify the recommended jobs in any way.
Further, the ALJ did not find that Plaintiff could work as a parking lot cashier or machine tender.
In conclusion, the Court finds all of Plaintiff’s challenges to the VE’s testimony without merit.
Thus, the VE’s testimony constituted substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONBased on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 8) be DENIED; and CASE 0:06-cv-03289-ADM-SRN Document 17 Filed 06/27/07 Page 23 of 23
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12) be GRANTED.
Dated: June 27, 2007
Under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b), any party may object to this Report and Recommendation by filing with the Clerk of Court, and serving all parties by July 13, 2007, a writing which specifically identifies those portions of this Report to which objections are made and the basis of those objections. Failure to comply with this procedure may operate as a forfeiture of the objecting party’s right to seek review in the Court of Appeals. A party may respond to the objecting party’s brief within ten days after service thereof. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions to which objection is made.
This Report and Recommendation does not constitute an order or judgment of the District Court, and it is therefore not appealable to the Court of Appeals.