David Weaver asks why Social Security doesn't do something about its reliance upon the ancient Dictionary of Occupational Titles in making disability determinations. Everyone agrees it's unreliable. People are being approved and denied based upon data collected more than 40 years ago. Why? My guess is that all of us are afraid of what comes next if we drop the DOT.
Same reason no one batted an eye when an ALJ testified to Congress about HOCALJs encouraging ALJs to decide the outcomes before looking at the medical records and use egg timers when working up cases to ensure they don’t “waste” more than 20 minutes looking at a claimant’s medical records. Because your government is run by sociopaths, and you people apparently love that or at least find it tolerable (based on your voting habits).
ReplyDeleteExactly. It’s the devil that we know vs the one we don’t know.
ReplyDeleteThe continued reliance on this shows how claimants are viewed as second-class citizens not only by the agency but by the courts. This type of shoddy evidence would not be permitted in just about any other legitimate legal proceeding. But, its okay for disability claimants.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I could never be an ALJ. I would lack the moral flexibility required to use false vocational information to turn down disability claims.
ReplyDeleteIllinois employment in manufacturing in February 1990 was 927,300. In February 2024 it was 581,000. From the St. Louis Federal Reserve.
ReplyDeleteAs a previous AC of ORDES, Weaver needs to take ownership of his role in the mismanagement of OIS develepment and waste of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
ReplyDelete@10:16
ReplyDeleteI would not call the Occupational Requirements Survey a waste, as there is a lot of good current job requirement information there that SSA could use to identify obsolete DOT titles. Weaver's point, that seems legit to me, is why not find responsible ways to start using that already developed ORS data to do things like identify obsolete DOT titles? The embarrassing stories of disability claimants denied due to junk vocational science and obsolete info will just keep piling up until that job is done.
Also, we need to clarify what are a significant number of jobs in the national in the national economy. There doesn't appear to be a uniform understanding of this. Is 50,000 realistic? Is it more, less?
ReplyDelete