Andrew Van Dam at the Washington Post has written a "Department of Data" piece on the Social Security Administration's continuing reliance upon incredibly old data in the adjudication of disability claims. He asks whether the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics could be the answer. Van Dam gives examples from the ORS but concentrates only upon the heaviest and lightest jobs in the economy and the ones that require the most and least training. That's fine but Social Security needs to concentrate upon those jobs that have both low physical AND mental demands. That's where the action is at Social Security.
Pages
▼
On the upside, the Appeals Council has started to remand in cases where jobs that are obviously outdated are relied upon. Unfortunately, because this is SSA, they stupidly mischaracterize testimony based upon the DOT as inconsistent with the DOT, when in fact the issue is that the DOT is inconsistent with reality. Still, baby steps….
ReplyDeleteSSA made a HUGE mistakewhen the DOL set out to update the DOT. They should have participted, not boycotted. the DOT is no detailed that SSA could NEVER BEGIN to duplicate its efforts. As an example, the DOT has a category for circus cannon ball! There were about 5 of those back in the day. It doesn't take much to be shot out of a cannon, but it is not a job for granny over 50. SSA went its own merry way and we are wtuck with something not updated since 1977! Some circuit crout somewhere should jut throw out any step 5 denial that relies on the DOT. We need some new legislation to fix a problem that is a running joke.
ReplyDeleteO’Malley wants to fix something - start here
ReplyDeleteContinuing the fiction that the DOT remains accurate through administrative notice has caused (and continues to cause) misadjudication on a mass scale. It encourages vocational witnesses to say things that aren’t true and adjudicators to accept things that aren’t true, often to the detriment of some of our most vulnerable citizens.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, some of the numbers of these positions make them unavailable to most even if they exist. What's significant? 35,00 in the national economy? Also, did you know that there are 3 million toll takers (unskilled, light & sedentary) in the national economy? Some ALJ's consider 50,000 too low and some consider 17,000 enough.
ReplyDeleteIts a shame that integrity is so lacking in our society today. We have all these ALJs who claim to be independent adjudicators but not a single one has the integrity to refuse to rely on evidence that is so obviously deficient. Far from independent adjudicators, this simply makes them government bureaucrats who are willing to forego their integrity to do whatever the bureaucracy wants. If only one had the guts to stand up and do the right thing and say no.
ReplyDelete@8:59
ReplyDeleteSomehow, some way, SSA convinced its highly educated ALJs that it is okay to accept highly deficient vocational evidence to deny step five cases. It would make an interesting psychological study. Kind of like the people who were convinced to accept spectral evidence at the Salem witch trials.
Actually, there was one ALJ who turned to a VE and asked about jobs, and said I want to hear about jobs in the real world (no burr grinders, etc.).
ReplyDelete