Try to open in a new page... Basically, SSA was frustrated that there were not enough DOT jobs in the manual, so that DDS could deny more people. Especially at skilled levels. They hadn't been updated, and the writer was extremely frustrated with the results and the delay and it was apparently making his life miserable. Oh, if only the were in my position. Three and a half years without being able to work... ALJ used 3 of those jobs to deny, 3 days shy of 49 1/2. Having to wait for an AC decision... He thought life was tough for him... It makes you wonder if he EVER thought about how tough life was for those he clearly wanted to deny. I am guessing no.
. . . or, and I know what many readers here will think about a suggestion that does not fit the concept of adjudicators predisposed to deny claims or a management structure pressuring them to do so, but . . .
One reading of this letter suggests that the agency was concerned about the unexplained reduction from the third to fourth edition of 86% of the sedentary unskilled occupations. I would agree that this document could have benefitted from greater clarity in its purpose for the benefit of those of us reviewing it much later, but that was not its purpose. Whatever the true impetus, the numbers just don't make sense.
I should have said her, I think. The author clearly mentions how the delays have been frustrating and difficult to live with. Not my words, hers. She was clearly upset that at the Labor Department for making many jobs light duty that had been sedentary or medium. Her use of the term "expense" conveys disappointment. The only conclusion that you can draw from this letter is that she thought this was or was going to result in more approvals. Clearly, she wasn't concerned with more denials. If you don't see this, then you are in denial!
5 comments:
When I click on "each page", I can't view it. I suspect this accounts for the lack of comments on this post.
Same here.
Try to open in a new page...
Basically, SSA was frustrated that there were not enough DOT jobs in the manual, so that DDS could deny more people. Especially at skilled levels. They hadn't been updated, and the writer was extremely frustrated with the results and the delay and it was apparently making his life miserable. Oh, if only the were in my position. Three and a half years without being able to work... ALJ used 3 of those jobs to deny, 3 days shy of 49 1/2. Having to wait for an AC decision... He thought life was tough for him... It makes you wonder if he EVER thought about how tough life was for those he clearly wanted to deny. I am guessing no.
. . . or, and I know what many readers here will think about a suggestion that does not fit the concept of adjudicators predisposed to deny claims or a management structure pressuring them to do so, but . . .
One reading of this letter suggests that the agency was concerned about the unexplained reduction from the third to fourth edition of 86% of the sedentary unskilled occupations. I would agree that this document could have benefitted from greater clarity in its purpose for the benefit of those of us reviewing it much later, but that was not its purpose. Whatever the true impetus, the numbers just don't make sense.
Then again, my sky is not perpetually falling.
I should have said her, I think. The author clearly mentions how the delays have been frustrating and difficult to live with. Not my words, hers. She was clearly upset that at the Labor Department for making many jobs light duty that had been sedentary or medium. Her use of the term "expense" conveys disappointment. The only conclusion that you can draw from this letter is that she thought this was or was going to result in more approvals. Clearly, she wasn't concerned with more denials. If you don't see this, then you are in denial!
Post a Comment