… Dr. Michelle Aliff and Ryann Hill recently met with SSA leadership including Jay Ortis (Acting Deputy Commissioner for Disability Adjudication) and Acting Chief ALJ to discuss efforts to improve disability determinations.
- DDS Delays: SSA acknowledged long wait times and is exploring tech-based solutions to streamline case processing and flag idle cases.
- Vocational Experts (VEs): SSA reaffirmed the essential role of VEs at the hearing level and emphasized that human adjudicators will continue to make final decisions.
- Occupational Data: Concerns were raised about the limitations of the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS), including its lack of data on issues like cane use, absenteeism, and full-time work. SSA agreed ORS should not be the sole occupational data source.
- ALJ Expectations & DOT: Some ALJs still expect VE testimony to align with the outdated DOT. SSA recognized the need to resolve this inconsistency as part of modernization efforts.
SSA Modernization Efforts: What’s on the Horizon for VEs?
SSA is revisiting proposed regulations that threatens utilization of vocational experts (VEs) by replacing the DOT with ORS data and relying on internal software (VIT) to determine job availability and potentially allowing ALJ’s to input RFCs without expert input. These changes, originally drafted but never released under the prior administration, may soon be issued as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. If the NPRM is issued, a public comment period will follow. This will be a critical opportunity to advocate for the continued role of vocational experts and ensure that decision-making remains grounded in expert analysis and not just algorithms. …
I know Charles used my link because it still has ChatGPT in the URL, lol.
ReplyDeleteThe proposed regulations as written are in direct conflict to the assurances given by SSA, as detailed in the 4 bullet points. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteGood question and the answer is likely who knows. Lots of double talk, say one thing, do another.
DeleteI don't see the conflict. Acknowledging the need for human adjudicators (VEs, in this case) can mutually exist with needing them less OFTEN and in a fewer number of cases.
DeleteAt least, that's my read on it.
The question is whether who is lying to who here.
DeleteVEs are not adjudicators.
DeleteI think that "emphasized that human adjudicators will continue to make final decisions" refers to ALJs, not VE's.
DeleteIf Michelle Aliff wasn’t a bully many these meetings would be more productive. She has an aggressive history and many of her so called advocacy fails. SSA is not an employment agency for VEs. I hope they find adequate technology to replace all VEs. It’s a complete waste of tax payer dollars. Most VEs are incompetent and are ill prepared at hearings.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the whole thing with VEs is kind of a farce because we all know the limitations that will result in disability findings. Why go through the facade of acting like the VEs are providing anything meaningful to the process.
DeleteAliff has good ideas for using more modern and reliable data. The elephant in the room is SSA's unwillingness to require quality and consistency from VEs. When you have one VE saying there are 2,000 addressers in the nation in a morning hearing, and another saying there's 125,000 in afternoon, and the ALJ accepts both, you've got a serious problem at SSA, and ethical concerns for some VEs who practice in this field. The lack of a consensus on what a reliable methodology is for determining job requirements and numbers in these cases needs to be carefully considered, and extreme outliers need to be identified and subject to scrutiny by SSA.
ReplyDelete