the ALJ had the support of substantial evidence. C Crediting the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ found that the plaintiff could perform a substantial number of jobs in the national economy. The plaintiff contends that the jobs listed by the vocational expert are not pertinent here. All of the custodial and truck driving jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles are listed at the medium exertional level, he says, and the jobs in question are semi-skilled rather than unskilled. The plaintiff comes close to arguing that only the Dictionary of Occupational Titles can be used as a basis for defining the characteristics of jobs occurring in the national economy. The plaintiffs argument does not withstand scrutiny. See Whitehouse v. Sullivan, 949 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The Social Security regulations themselves
holding that a vocational expert must be consulted when an rfc falls between two categories recognizing that ssr 004ps scope is limited to expert testimony concerning the actual requirements of a job holding that a vocational expert need not correlate job titles in the dictionary with titles taken from state job summaries holding that vocational expert testimony in response to a hypothetical can constitute substantial evidence of residual functional capacity holding that claimants pain should have formed a paxt of aljs question to vocational expert