From Social Security Ruling 24-3p.; Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational Information and Vocational Specialist and Vocational Expert Evidence in Disability Determinations and Decisions, due to appear in the Federal Register tomorrow:
... VSs [Vocational Specialists, used at DDS] and VEs [Vocational Experts, used at OHO] may provide evidence based on their professional experience and any reliable source of occupational information that is commonly used in the vocational profession and relevant under our rules. VSs and VEs are in the best position to determine the most appropriate sources of data to support the evidence they offer. We expect VSs and VEs to identify the sources of the data they use and, where applicable, to explain their general approach to estimating job numbers. If the VS or VE uses a data source that defines exertion, education, or skill levels differently than our regulations, we expect the VS or VE to explain the difference. ...
Some sources of occupational data use definitions of exertion level, skill level, and education level that align closely with our program rules. The DOT is such a source. If a VS or VE uses a source that defines exertion, skill, or education level differently than our program rules, we expect the VS or VE to acknowledge the difference and explain whether or how they have accounted for the difference. ...
You can start to see a new occupational information system coming. They're trying to avoid the necessity of changing their regulations. Also, they want to phase it in and they want to have it both ways -- use either the old or the new to deny claims with claimants unable to demand consistency.
9 comments:
They make only glancing reference to ORS data and Job incidence but say nothing at all specific as to how this is to be incorporated into the testimony and reasonably considered. Unless there are more SSRs and further instructions provided, not at all sure what this SSR accomplished.
This looks like nothing more than a clarification of SSR 00-4p, perhaps to restate things that just never sank in with certain attorneys and judges.
"may provide evidence based on their professional experience and any reliable source of occupational information that is commonly used in the vocational profession" How do we define what a"reliable source of occupational information" is? If they are referring to SkillTran Job Browser Pro, while it is commonly used in the vocational profession, thee is no means by which we meausre its reliability.
I think this was intended to reduce federal court remands by lowering expectations of what ALJs are supposed to do. Nothing more complicated than that.
Maybe we will hear less about occupations that were last updated in 1977.
Maybe we will hear less about occupations that haven't been updated since 1977.
So, my ALJs for a while now have been point blank asking the VEs "The jobs you identified, do they still exist as described in the DOT or have there been material changes to the job as it is performed now as compared to how they are described in the DOT?" The response I usually get is "The only change, and I would not consider it material is that _____ machine is now used as opposed to a typewrite/microfiche, etc." Then the ALJ usually stops me when I try to dig in to the changes more, and I have to file an AC brief
I'm thinking a lot of ALJ's are internally laughing at some of the things the VE's will come up with. I haven't used microfiche since 1989. Though it is still in use, those jobs are for deep research and either require, for example, a Journalism Degree or other research and development degrees to be productive enough to make money and have it worth while. There has to be a lot of mental capability for research. It doesn't matter if "_______ machine is now used..." instead, it's still a mentally taxing job to research things to THAT extent. That's just one example.
A fantastic ruling to impede unscrupulous attorneys from abusing the step five process. Much needed. Bravo, Commissioner O'Malley!
Post a Comment