MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PATRICK WALSH, Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is Plaintiff's appeal of a decision by Defendant Social Security Administration ("the Agency"), denying his application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). Plaintiff claims that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred when he accepted the vocational expert's testimony that Plaintiff was capable of working as a cashier, office clerk, and storage facility rental clerk. In Plaintiff's view, his physical limitations preclude him from performing these jobs and the vocational expert's testimony that he could was inconsistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"). For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err.

In December 2007, Plaintiff applied for SSI, alleging that he was unable to work due to the lingering effects of injuries to his left arm, right knee, and back that he suffered in a motorcycle accident. (Administrative Record ("AR") 27, 123-25, 149.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was limited to light work and could not lift more than ten pounds with his left arm, could not forcefully grasp and torque with that arm, and could not kneel on his right knee. (AR 11.) The vocational expert determined that a hypothetical person with these limitations could perform the work of cashier, DOT No. 211.462-010, office clerk, DOT No. 239.567-010, and storage facility rental clerk, DOT No. 295.367-026. (AR 54-56.) The ALJ accepted the vocational expert's testimony and, as a result, concluded that Plaintiff could work at these jobs and was, therefore, not disabled.

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ and the vocational expert were mistaken. He argues that these jobs require frequent forceful grasping and torquing with his left arm. (Joint Stip. at 4-9.) He explains, for example, that a storage facility rental clerk is required to fill out rental agreements, photograph renters, and load film into a security camera and argues that these activities require forceful grasping and torquing with his left arm. (Joint Stip. at 8.)

The Court could not disagree more. The DOT description of this job does not include a requirement of forceful grasping or torquing. Nor is Plaintiff's argument that it does the least bit persuasive, particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff is right-handed. (AR 165.) The same holds true for the other two jobs. As such, this argument is rejected.

Plaintiff notes that the DOT entry for the storage facility-rental clerk job includes a requirement for occasional kneeling. (Joint Stip. at 8.) He points out that, as the ALJ found, he is precluded from kneeling on his right knee. He claims that this means that he is not capable of performing this job. (Joint Stip. at 8.)

The response to this argument is obvious. Plaintiff is not restricted from kneeling on his left knee. Thus, the fact that the job requires occasional kneeling does not preclude Plaintiff from performing it since he can kneel on his left knee.

Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, the DOT descriptions of these jobs do not include a requirement for grasping or torquing. Nor is it reasonable to read into the descriptions such requirements. As such, Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ and the vocational expert erred when they concluded that he could perform the jobs of cashier, clerk, and storage facility rental clerk despite his limitations is without merit. For this reason, the Agency's decision denying Plaintiff's application for SSI is affirmed and the case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.