May 23, 2011

OIDAP Documents Released -- What's The Plan?

The Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP), Social Security's effort to develop an alternative to the antiquated Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), a key element in disability determination, has released some documents from its May 4, 2011 public meeting

Many of the speakers the Panel heard were from the Department of Labor, which had prepared the DOT and its successor, the O*NET, and from the Department of the Census, which has its own very limited occupational information system. Maybe these presentations helped the Panel. My possibly jaundiced view is that this was nothing more than window dressing to give an appearance that whatever the Panel produces reflects a scientific consensus.My view may also be influenced by the fact that many of the presentations were in Powerpoint. I agree with those who blame Powerpoint "for everything from corporate [and governmental] stupidification to burying Western civilization in a hailstorm of bullet points."

The more important presentations were from the Panel Chair, Mary Barros-Bailey, and Social Security's Director of Occupational Information System development, Sylvia Karman. What has been posted is not complete enough to give one a clear idea of the plans of Barros-Bailey and Karman but it is clear that Social Security is charging ahead with a major endeavor.

I wish I could get answers to two questions from Barros-Bailey and Karman:
  • Let us suppose that you collect data on a job, such as office assistant, and this data shows that it to have been performed at the sedentary level at 20% of employers, at the light level at 70% of employers and at the medium level at 10% of employers. How would this job be categorized in the occupational information system you are developing -- as sedentary, as light or as medium -- or would it be categorized as all three -- or would it would be broken down into three new job titles of Office Assistant I, II and III? A similar question could also be asked about the length of time it takes to learn the job of office assistant or many other criteria.
  • When will the decision be made on how to categorize jobs? Before or after the data is collected?
You might think that categorizing a job at all levels at which it is performed would be more accurate, and in a sense it is, but it also produces such muddy results that this approach has always been rejected in the past when occupational information systems were compiled. An occupational information system that does not try to categorize jobs by how they are typically performed could be used to justify denying virtually any disability claim. All you would have to do is to find a few people performing a job at the same limited level as the claimant and you have justification for denial. This is a big country. There are millions of employers. There are many ways that most job can be performed. Employers often regard employees as their friends. Employers make many concessions to the circumstances of individual valued employees, especially those they regard as their friends, concessions that are not available to the general public. Go down this route and vocational information becomes almost irrelevant since you would always be able to find work that a claimant could perform no matter what his or her limitations might be.

I think my concern with OIDAP's work is best summarized with a sports quote whose origins are probably apocryphal : "The problem with referees is that they just don't care which side wins." I would like OIDAP to be that referee who does not care which side wins but I am pretty sure that they do.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would not hope too hard. If there is too much of a win for claimants, Congress might come in and make obtaining benefits more difficult... perhaps by putting the burden of proof at step five on the claimant.

Anonymous said...

"I would like OIDAP to be that referee who does not care which side wins."

Actually, that's not what you want. Because under that scenario, as you indicated above..."would always be able to find work that a claimant could perform no matter what his or her limitations might be."

You can't have it both ways. Under a legitimate DOT type analysis, disability will rarely ever be found (which is probably the way it should be). The question is "will someone hire this person?"

Under the law, the question is "Are there jobs that this person can do?"

Anonymous said...

Under the law, the question should be "Are there jobs that this person can do effectively"

Anonymous said...

the vocational aspect of the ssa disability program has always been its achilles heel for a sharp claimants' attorney to unravel, but also the insurmountable hurdle that a keen alj could construct.

it is ridiculous and completely illusory, as long as courts choose not to reach a hard line number on what constitutes a "significant number of jobs" in the national economy, and as long as the statute and regs inherently make it impossible for a claimant to prove "disability" by casting a nationwide net as to available jobs. just pray your client meets the grids because otherwise you will fall down the rabbit hole.

i dont know what would work better--partial disability ratings, mandatory vocational training, limited disability period--but i know the current system does not work, unless it exists just to give the agency cover to deny people.