DISCLAIMER:  Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.

132619P.pdf   09/02/2014  Richard Welsh  v.  Carolyn Colvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2619
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Murphy, Circuit Judge, and Perry, 
   District Judge] 
   Civil case - Social Security. Failure to mention Social Security Rule 
   96-9p governing situations where the claimant could perform less than the 
   full range of sedentary work was an arguable deficiency of opinion writing 
   by the ALJ but the ALJ properly consulted the VE and the analysis 
   performed complied with the Rule; when the ALJ poses a hypothetical that 
   accurately reflects his RFC finding, questions the VE about any apparent 
   inconsistencies within the relevant DOT job descriptions, and explains the 
   decision to credit the VE's testimony, the ALJ has complied with relevant 
   Social Security Ruling (00-4p), and the decision is reviewed under the 
   deferential substantial evidence standard; the ALJ did not err in finding 
   there were a significant number of jobs claimant could perform.