In an action for Social Security disability benefits, the district court's judgment, that a Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ) did not err by not asking the vocational expert more specific questions regarding a claimant’s ability to reach overhead as part of a cashier job, in connection with the claimant's application for Social Security disability benefits, is affirmed where there was no apparent or obvious conflict between the expert's testimony that claimant could work as a cashier, and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles' general statement that cashiering requires frequent reaching.