From Job Incidence Numbers in Social Security Disability Claims: A Case Study and Analysis by Kevin Liebkemann, 44 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judiciary 15 (2024) .
... The case survey results suggest that the SSA’s current vocational evidence system is broken in ways that can hurt disability claimants. Some variance in VE [Vocational Expert] job incidence number testimony may be reasonable. However, survey results document that VEs frequently gave markedly different national job incidence numbers for the same job around the same time, which indicates that the VE’s methodologies employed were inconsistent and thus unreliable. Further, study of cases involving other frequently cited DOT job titles could help determine how widespread this problem is. Some courts have already taken notice of such discrepancies regarding VE testimony of job incidence for other DOT titles. ...
SSA does not currently have adequate rules or enforcement in place to protect the public from the problem documented in the study data, namely VEs giving extremely disparate job incidence numbers for the same DOT title. The study data and case review found that SSA ALJs accepted those disparate numbers. The SSA’s Office of Inspector General that is charged with searching for and reporting systemic weaknesses in SSA programs has not yet issued any investigation reports on the reliability of VE methodologies for determining job incidence numbers. ...
10 comments:
How many is an adequate # of incidents for the job[s] cited?
Good question @10:57. And some given numbers I really have to question, did you know there are 3 million toll takers in the national economy?
and silver ware wrappers still exist... as do addressers... haha - the system is an archaic joke that greatly hurts claimants
I’ve always wondered why SSA doesn’t take administrative notice/issue an SSR stating a significant number of jobs exist at the MOST restrictive RFC (or most common RFCs used) at med, light & sedentary considering the full combination of postural, manipulative, environmental, communicative, and mental limitations. So, take administrative notice that an RFC at x exertional limits, x postural limits, x manipulative limits, x environmental limits, x hearing/seeing limits, and x mental limits results in a finding of a significant number of jobs at med, at light, or at sed.
Yes, I know RFCs are to reflect the MOST someone can do. But, so long as the RFC used is at, or less restrictive than, the administratively noticed RFC, there’s jobs. They could also take notice of what level of breaks, off-task time, sit/stand option, & absenteeism are generally permissible, so anything at or less restrictive than that means there’s jobs.
Seems like this would save a lot of money on the need for VEs and resolve the inconsistencies this case study brings up. Of course, this approach would also have to worry about critique of the methodology used to come to the conclusion jobs exist, but aren’t we already in this pickle with the current approach?
ALJ's already have the discretion to ignore VE testimony if it appears non-responsive to the hypothetical or seems inconsistent with previously accepted testimony.Ve's are limited by an outdated D.O.T. and reliable sources for job numbers in the national economy without interpretation of currently available data requiring significant time expenditure. An SSR might be helpful,but there probably is as much variance in ALJ application of such guidance as there is VE variance in job numbers. So we all labor on in an imperfect system awaiting either some divine guidance or a miracle-neither of which is likely to occur.
Part of the problem is that the government no longer counts job numbers by DOT title, but SSA wants VEs to give job numbers by DOT title. How does a VE convert job numbers from the current classification the government uses to count job numbers (the SOC) into job numbers by DOT title? It often can't be done without some guesswork and questionable assumptions, which can vary amongst VEs. DOT obsolesence further complicates the picture.
I never knew that slow unskilled individuals could work in the post office as sorters or some such thing, 75,000 to be exact. She had even placed some like this at the post office.
Love that silver wrapper and what about the order caller? From the past, I loved the candy spreader and the burr grinder.
Don't forget edible nut sorter, potato chip packager, gate guard, timer (clocking racehorses at the county fairgrounds during their morning practice) and tobacco leaf tier.
Do these jobs (as well as addresser, silverware wrapper, etc) exist? Sure. As a full-time, stand-alone job? I doubt it.
If these jobs exist and employers are actually willing to hire disabled people, why not bring them to the hearings to decide who to hire and then eliminate the VE? Because they don't really exist?
Post a Comment