New Ruling Allows Use Of Vocational Information Sources Other Than DOT

     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.

A Busy Saturday For Social Security

      It was a busy Saturday for Social Security. Yes, a busy Saturday!

     First, Social Security has added significantly more data to the online reports available to attorneys representing claimants at the initial and reconsideration levels. I have not tried it yet but early reports I have heard indicate that it’s a work in progress. Still, this holds out the prospect of two advantages. It gives attorneys easier access to information on the status of their clients’ cases. It cuts down on the number of calls to Social Security asking about case status.

     Second, Social Security issued two Emergency Messages on which jobs can be considered as alternative work a claimant can perform if he or she is unable to perform their past relevant work. In the more important of the Emergency Messages there is a list of jobs that cannot be considered absent “additional evidence” from a Vocational Expert:

DOT Code	DOT Occupational Title	DOT Industry Designation
209.587-010	Addresser	clerical
249.587-018	Document Preparer, Microfilming	business services
249.587-014	Cutter-and-Paster, Press Clippings	business services
239.687-014	Tube Operator	clerical
318.687-018	Silver Wrapper	hotel and restaurant
349.667-010	Host/Hostess, Dance Hall	amusement and recreation
349.667-014	Host/Hostess, Head	amusement and recreation
379.367-010	Surveillance-System Monitor	government services
521.687-010	Almond Blancher, Hand	canning and preserving
521-687-086	Nut Sorter	canning and preserving
726.685-010	Magnetic-Tape Winder	recording
782.687-030	Puller-Through	glove and mitten
976.385-010	Microfilm Processor	business services

     In another Emergency Messages there’s this list of jobs that can no longer be considered at all:

DOT Code	DOT Occupational Title	DOT Industry Designation(s)
013.061-010	AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER	professional and kindred occupations
013.061-014	AGRICULTURAL-RESEARCH ENGINEER	professional and kindred occupations
013.061-018	DESIGN-ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT	professional and kindred occupations
013.061-022	TEST ENGINEER, AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT	professional and kindred occupations
021.067-010	ASTRONOMER	professional and kindred occupations
029.067-010	GEOGRAPHER	professional and kindred occupations
029.067-014	GEOGRAPHER, PHYSICAL	professional and kindred occupations
045.061-014	PSYCHOLOGIST, ENGINEERING	professional and kindred occupations
045.107-030	PSYCHOLOGIST, INDUSTRIAL-ORGANIZATIONAL	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-014	DIRECTOR, STATE-HISTORICAL SOCIETY	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-018	GENEALOGIST	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-022	HISTORIAN	professional and kindred occupations
052.067-026	HISTORIAN, DRAMATIC ARTS	professional and kindred occupations
052.167-010	DIRECTOR, RESEARCH	motion picture; radio and television broadcasting
072.101-018	ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEON	medical services
072.101-034	PROSTHODONTIST	medical services
193.162-022	AIRLINE-RADIO OPERATOR, CHIEF	air transportation; business services
193.262-010	AIRLINE-RADIO OPERATOR	air transportation; business services
193.262-014	DISPATCHER	government services
193.262-022	RADIO OFFICER	water transportation
193.262-026	RADIO STATION OPERATOR	aircraft manufacturing
193.262-030	RADIOTELEGRAPH OPERATOR	telephone and telegraph
193.262-034	RADIOTELEPHONE OPERATOR	any industry
193.362-010	PHOTORADIO OPERATOR	printing and publishing; telephone and telegraph
193.362-014	RADIO-INTELLIGENCE OPERATOR	government services
193.382-010	ELECTRONIC INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS SPECIALIST	military services
203.562-010	WIRE-TRANSFER CLERK	financial institutions
235.462-010	CENTRAL-OFFICE OPERATOR	telephone and telegraph
235.562-010	CLERK, ROUTE	telephone and telegraph
235.662-018	DIRECTORY-ASSISTANCE OPERATOR	telephone and telegraph
236.562-010	TELEGRAPHER	railroad transportation
236.562-014	TELEGRAPHER AGENT	railroad transportation
237.367-034	PAY-STATION ATTENDANT	telephone and telegraph
239.382-010	WIRE-PHOTO OPERATOR, NEWS	printing and publishing
297.667-014	MODEL	garment; retail trade; wholesale trade
299.647-010	IMPERSONATOR, CHARACTER	any industry
305.281-010	COOK	domestic service
338.371-010	EMBALMER APPRENTICE	personal service
338.371-014	EMBALMER	personal service
379.384-010	SCUBA DIVER	any industry
410.161-010	ANIMAL BREEDER	agriculture and agricultural service
410.161-014	FUR FARMER	agriculture and agricultural service
410.161-018	LIVESTOCK RANCHER	agriculture and agricultural service
410.161-022	HOG-CONFINEMENT-SYSTEM MANAGER	agriculture and agricultural service
411.161-010	CANARY BREEDER	agriculture and agricultural service
411.161-014	POULTRY BREEDER	agriculture and agricultural service
413.161-014	REPTILE FARMER	agriculture and agricultural service
452.167-010	FIRE WARDEN	forestry
452.367-010	FIRE LOOKOUT	forestry
452.367-014	FIRE RANGER	forestry
455.367-010	LOG GRADER	logging; sawmill and planing mill
455.487-010	LOG SCALER	logging; millwork, veneer, plywood, and structural wood members; paper and pulp; sawmill and planing mill
519.684-010	LADLE LINER	foundry; smelting and refining
519.684-022	STOPPER MAKER	blast furnace, steel work, and rolling and finishing mill
579.664-010	CLAY-STRUCTURE BUILDER AND SERVICER	glass manufacturing
661.281-010	LOFT WORKER	ship and boat manufacturing and repairing
661.281-018	PATTERNMAKER APPRENTICE, WOOD	foundry
661.281-022	PATTERNMAKER, WOOD	foundry
661.380-010	MODEL MAKER, WOOD	any industry
690.682-078	STITCHER, SPECIAL MACHINE	boot and shoe
690.682-082	STITCHER, STANDARD MACHINE	boot and shoe
690.685-494	STITCHER, TAPE-CONTROLLED MACHINE	boot and shoe
693.261-018	MODEL MAKER	aircraft-aerospace manufacturing
714.281-010	AIRCRAFT-PHOTOGRAPHIC-EQUIPMENT MECHANIC	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-014	CAMERA REPAIRER	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-018	MACHINIST, MOTION-PICTURE EQUIPMENT	motion picture; photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-022	PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-026	PHOTOGRAPHIC-EQUIPMENT-MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN	photographic apparatus and materials
714.281-030	SERVICE TECHNICIAN, COMPUTERIZED-PHOTOFINISHING EQUIPMENT	photofinishing
715.281-010	WATCH REPAIRER	clocks watches, and allied products
715.281-014	WATCH REPAIRER APPRENTICE	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-010	ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-014	ASSEMBLER, WATCH TRAIN	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-018	BANKING PIN ADJUSTER	clocks watches, and allied products
715.381-022	BARREL ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-026	BARREL-BRIDGE ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-030	BARREL-ENDSHAKE ADJUSTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-038	CHRONOMETER ASSEMBLER AND ADJUSTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-042	CHRONOMETER-BALANCE-AND-HAIRSPRING ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-054	HAIRSPRING ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-062	HAIRSPRING VIBRATOR	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-082	PALLET-STONE INSERTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-086	PALLET-STONE POSITIONER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.381-094	WATCH ASSEMBLER	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.584-014	REPAIRER, AUTO CLOCKS	clocks, watches, and allied products
715.681-010	TIMING ADJUSTER	clocks, watches, and allied products
761.381-014	JIG BUILDER	wooden container
788.684-114	THREAD LASTER	boot and shoe
826.261-010	FIELD-SERVICE ENGINEER	photographic apparatus and materials
841.381-010	PAPERHANGER	construction
841.684-010	BILLPOSTER	business services
849.484-010	BOILER RELINER, PLASTIC BLOCK	foundry
850.663-010	DREDGE OPERATOR	construction; coal, metal, and nonmetal mining and quarrying
861.381-046	TERRAZZO WORKER	construction
861.381-050	TERRAZZO-WORKER APPRENTICE	construction
861.664-014	TERRAZZO FINISHER	construction
899.261-010	DIVER	any industry
899.684-010	BONDACTOR-MACHINE OPERATOR	foundry
910.362-010	TOWER OPERATOR	railroad transportation
910.363-018	YARD ENGINEER	railroad transportation
910.382-010	CAR-RETARDER OPERATOR	railroad transportation
910.583-010	LABORER, CAR BARN	railroad transportation
910.683-010	HOSTLER	railroad transportation
910.683-022	TRANSFER-TABLE OPERATOR	railroad equipment building and repairing; railroad transportation
911.663-010	MOTORBOAT OPERATOR	any industry
919.663-014	DINKEY OPERATOR	any industry
919.683-010	DOCK HAND	air transportation
919.683-026	TRACKMOBILE OPERATOR	any industry
930.683-026	ROOF BOLTER	coal, metal, and nonmetal mining and quarrying
952.362-022	POWER-REACTOR OPERATOR	utilities
960.362-010	MOTION-PICTURE PROJECTIONIST	amusement and recreation; motion picture
960.382-010	AUDIOVISUAL TECHNICIAN	any industry
961.367-010	MODEL, PHOTOGRAPHERS'	any industry
961.667-010	MODEL, ARTISTS'	any industry

     I’m not completely sure about this second list. There aren’t terrazzo finishers or artist’s models anymore? I don’t see being an artist model as a career, however. Aren’t there still embalmers these days?  None of this matters except in rare cases, however.

Job Incidence Numbers Are Unreliable

     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. ...

How Much Do VEs and MEs Make?

     This is from a Freedom of Information Act response that Social Security posted recently.

Social Security Says Don't Rely On SkillTRAN For Numbers Of Jobs

     From Emergency Message EM-21065 REV, Guidelines for Using Occupational Information in Electronic Tools issued yesterday (emphasis added):

In making disability determinations, SSA relies primarily on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) (including its companion publication, the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO)) for information about the requirements of work in the national economy. The SSA Digital Library hosts three searchable databases developed by SkillTRAN for the DOT. Adjudicators may use these tools to help make an assessment at step four (see 20 CFR 404.1560(b)(2) and 416.960(b)(2)) or step five (see 20 CFR 404.1566(d), 404.1568(d)(2), 416.966(d), and 416.968(d)(2)) of the sequential evaluation process. ...

 [The three searchable databases] contain DOT and SCO occupational information developed by the United States Department of Labor (DOL). This information is useful, but it does not replace SSA policy or adjudicative judgment and decision-making. While the DOT and SCO are acceptable sources of occupational information for adjudicating disability claims, they also contain (1) information that must not be used in disability adjudication because our rules and subregulatory guidance do not permit it and (2) information of which we do not take administrative notice. ...

Federal agencies now publish labor market information by the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code. Those with vocational expertise use various approaches to arrive at informed estimates of numbers of jobs that exist within a DOT occupation. Results may differ given the method used for the estimate. We have not reviewed and do not specifically endorse the SkillTRAN proprietary algorithm. ...

    To explain, in responding to hypothetical questions, vocational experts testifying at hearings on Social Security disability claims give lists of jobs that a hypothetical claimant could perform. They also testify to the numbers of such jobs in the economy. The numbers of jobs figures come from a propriety program, SkillTRAN. I think that everyone who has looked at this issue, including Administrative Law Judges, knows that those SkillTRAN numbers are bull. Social Security is finally acknowledging this. 

    Will this affect cases where these numbers have already been cited in decisions? We'll see.                                                                            

Presentation On New Occupational Information System

    On March 18, 2023, Charis Clark and Karen Litschgi of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) gave a presentation to the American Board of Vocational Experts (ABVE) on the Occupational Requirements Survey: Date and Upcoming Changes. By Freedom of Information Act request I have obtained the Powerpoint slide deck they used for the presentation. (I appreciate the Department of Labor's promptness in responding to my request.) I don't see any surprises in it but if you're interested in what's going on with Social Security's effort to have BLS create a new occupational information system for use in determining disability you should take a look. As boring as this may seem, it's vitally important to the future of Social Security disability determination. The seemingly never-ending process to develop a new system deserves close scrutiny. I don't trust Social Security on this. I'm not sure that anyone who knows much about this trusts Social Security.

    Below are links to the original Powerpoint version and to a version that I printed to PDF. If you're using the PDF version, you will see links in the upper left hand corner of the screens leading to notes apparently used by the presenters. Those notes were apparently not visible to the audience. If you use the Powerpoint version, those notes are visible at the bottom of the screen.

• Powerpoint version
• PDF version
  

    Update: You will have to ask permission to receive the file. I will approve these as quickly as I can. If you know of a better way of doing this sort of thing, I'd be interested.

Should Probationary Periods Be A Factor In Disability Determination?

     From Emergency Message EM-23021:

This EM provides instructions for all components to identify and code cases where the claimant resides in Connecticut, New York, or Vermont, and the record contains vocational evidence that the occupation(s) identified at step five of the sequential evaluation process (SEP), 20 CFR 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 20 CFR 416.920(a)(4)(v), require probationary periods where work demands during the probationary period exceed the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). ... 

On January 7, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a precedential decision in Sczepanski v. Saul, 946 F.3d 152 (2020). The case addressed the agency’s step five decision to find a claimant not disabled despite the record containing evidence showing that work demands present only during employer-specific probationary periods exceeded the claimant’s RFC. In Sczepanski, the RFC included a limitation that the claimant could miss up to one day of work per month. At the hearing, the claimant’s representative asked the vocational expert (VE) how much absenteeism employers would tolerate at a sedentary, unskilled, entry-level job. The VE replied that the typical employer for those jobs would tolerate no more than two days per month of absenteeism over the course of employment. The representative also questioned the VE about absenteeism during probationary periods at the start of employment. In response, the VE testified that typically, employers would tolerate no absences during probationary periods. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision finding the claimant not disabled based on the ability to perform other work at step five without addressing whether the claimant could satisfy heightened attendance standards imposed by employers during a probationary period. 

The Second Circuit vacated the agency’s decision. The court found the inability to complete a probationary period relevant to the determination of a claimant’s ability to perform other work at step five. In so finding, the court held that “[t]he ability to complete a probationary period is ... tantamount to the ability to keep a job, and … the ability to keep a job is a necessary prerequisite to the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.” The court remanded the case with instructions for the agency to further develop the record. Specifically, the court instructed the agency to determine whether a significant number of jobs remain that either lack a probationary period or impose probationary-period requirements consistent with the claimant’s RFC. 

We are evaluating whether to publish an Acquiescence Ruling (AR) for the Sczepanski decision. While awaiting further guidance, all components should follow the instructions set out in this EM to identify and code cases potentially affected by the January 7, 2020, Sczepanski decision. ...

Kafkaesque Indeed

 

Kafka

    Mark Betancourt has written a piece for Mother Jones magazine titled Inside The Kafkaesque Process For Determining Who Gets Federal Disability Benefits.

     The use of the term “Kafkaesque” may be more apt that Mr. Betancourt realizes. Frans Kafka’s day job was in the related field of what would today be called workers compensation claims.

Why Is Social Security Still Using The DOT?

     From WBTV in Charlotte:

A WBTV Investigation into social security shows thousands of people are denied disability claims every year because of jobs that are out-of-date.

The Social Security Administration uses a guide called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles that hasn’t been updated since 1991, even as technological advancements have made many of the jobs described in the book obsolete.

The impact that it’s had can be felt by people like Gray Hogan. ...

Hogan applied for disability. He’s been unable to work a forty-hour week for years because of the pain.

But Hogan was denied twice. When social security denies a claimant, the person can often file an appeal in court with an administrative law judge. That process has numerous steps and the last one is for social security to determine if there are any jobs a claimant could work. That’s when Hogan was told there were jobs that were suited for him. But none of them were from the 21st Century.

“Document preparer, addresser and (envelope) stuffer,” Hogan said.

“Common sense would tell you that job doesn’t exist as it’s described,” attorney George Piemonte told WBTV. ...

“Over the millions of claims that they’re reviewing, you’re still talking about hundreds of thousands of people being denied based on these nonexistent jobs,” Piemonte said. ...

What A Mess

     Can Social Security start holding in person hearings prior to the release of a vaccine for Covid-19? Many disability claimants are immunocompromised because of medication they're taking. Even if everything else is reopening, it may be inadvisable for them to attend a hearing. And it's not just the claimants. Some of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who hold the hearings are immunocompromised as are some of the attorneys, vocational experts and hearing reporters who attend the hearings. Many others are at additional risk from Covid-19 because of their age. I really want to get back to in person hearings but can they be held with reasonable safety for all the participants?

Article On Vocational Evidence At Social Security

     Jeremy Graboyes has written a piece for The Regulatory Review on The Search for Sound Vocational Evidence in Disability Adjudication. The impetus for the piece came from the recent Supreme Court opinion in Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security. Graboyes notes that Social Security has been working on a new Occupational Information System (OIS) which might help allay some of the problems that have existed for years.
     Grayobes doesn't mention that the process for creating a new OIS is anything but reassuring. We know almost nothing about what's going on even though it's been underway for more than ten years! There have been repeated delays in revealing the new OIS. It's obvious that there's something so unsatisfactory about the OIS that the agency cannot or will not let the public see it but no explanation has ever been given. There is reason for great concern that the Social Security Administration is trying to manipulate the presentation of data to achieve pre-determined goals for how it affects the number of disability claims approved and denied.
     The Social Security Administration isn't just a neutral adjudicator. It's a party to administrative adjudications with positions it wants upheld. Why should one party to an adjudication get to secretly create and edit evidence crucial to the outcome of cases?

Appropriations Bill Moves Forward With Many Directives For Social Security

     The House Appropriations Committee has reported out the bill that includes the appropriation for the Social Security Administration's operations. As expected, it includes a $300 million increase for Social Security. This is barely enough to keep up with inflation. The Senate bill is likely to be worse for Social Security.

     As usual, the Committee report on the bill includes a number of directives for the agency, which start at page 228 of the report. This year's bill includes a high number of these directives. Here's a list:

• Prepare report within 60 days on Administrative Law Judge selection;
• Include more information in Beneficiary Verification letters;
• Prepare report on negotiations with employee unions;
• Encourage proper consideration of headache disorders in determination of disability;
• Prepare update for Committee on agency's information technology modernization;
• Brief Committee on mailing paper statements;
• Prepare report on utilization of Social Security programs by persons suffering from muscular dystrophy;
• Prepare report on occupational information system project;
• Prepare proper research designs for all pilot projects and prepare a report on all such pilots;
• Prepare report within 180 days on improving Disability Determination Services process, including addressing the role of the reconsideration stage;
• Stop the proposal to charge fees for replacement Social Security cards;
• Stop pursuing the plan to consider social media postings in determining disability;
• Strongly urges agency to not proceed with plan for mandatory video hearings;
• Provide report within 90 days on strengthening vocational expert program;
• Strongly urges agency to not go forward with proposed regulations that would eliminate inability to communicate in English as factor in determining disability.

     One thing that didn't make this long list is a directive to strongly consider increasing the cap on fees that attorneys and others can charge for representing Social Security claimants.

Criticism For Biestek Supreme Court Opinion

     From “Has the Supreme Court Endorsed the Use of Junk Science in the Administrative State?” by Richard J. Pierce, Jr. published in The Regulatory Review:

In its famous opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major step toward assuring that our legal system functions on the basis of sound scientific principles. The Court held that judges must apply criteria based on such principles when they decide whether to admit expert testimony. ...

Daubert requires an expert witness to disclose the data and methodology they relied on as the basis for any opinion they propose to offer in court. The judge then decides whether the data and methodology are sufficiently reliable to support admitting the expert’s testimony. If the opposing counsel challenges the reliability of the data or methodology, the judge conducts a hearing during which opposing counsel has the opportunity to test the reliability of the data and methodology by cross-examining the witness.

Earlier this month, the Court issued a potentially infamous opinion that encourages agencies to rely on junk science. The facts of Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security are simple. Biestek applied for Social Security disability benefits. At a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Biestek claimed that he was so disabled that he could not perform the functions required by any job that is available in significant numbers in the U.S. economy. ...

In such a hearing, the government has the burden of proving the availability of a significant number of jobs that can be performed by someone with the age, education, experience, and health state of the applicant. The Social Security Administration (SSA) used a vocational expert as a witness, who testified that there were 120,000 jobs available for “sorters” and 240,000 jobs available for “bench assemblers” that Biestek could perform.

When asked to describe the basis for these numbers, the witness referred to two sources—the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and private surveys the witness had conducted for other clients. Since BLS does not report job availability statistics with the specificity required to support the number of jobs of a particular type the witness claimed to be available, the only possible basis for those numbers were the private surveys.

Biestek’s lawyer asked the witness to provide the private surveys. The witness refused on the basis that they were part of her confidential client files. ...

The majority [of the Supreme Court] reasoned that the ALJ could rely on the unsupported opinion of the witness for two reasons: the evidence satisfied the substantial evidence test and the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) do not apply to SSA disability hearings. The first reason is based on a misunderstanding of the substantial evidence test, while the second is based on a misunderstanding of the reasons why Congress decided that the FRE do not apply to agency hearings. ...

The Court’s opinion in Biestek has the potential to produce an administrative state in which many important decisions are based on junk science. As Jason Johnston has explained, many agencies have relied on junk science as the sole basis for decisions that have serious financial consequences. For instance, some decisions in which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required firms to incur billions of dollars in costs are based on findings from researchers who have refused to provide anyone, including EPA, with the data and analysis on which the findings are based. It is impossible to know whether those findings are supported by reliable data and analysis. ...

The Daubert Court did not indulge the naïve assumption that an expert should be believed simply because she has impressive credentials and an impeccable reputation. ...

SCOTUS Rules On Biestek

     The Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Biestek v. Berryhill, a Social Security case. Here's an excerpt from the Supreme Court's syllabus of its opinion:

  ... Biestek proposes a categorical rule that the testimony of a vocational expert who refuses a request for supporting data about job availability can never clear that bar. To assess that proposal, the Court begins with the parties’ common ground: Assuming no demand, a vocational expert’s testimony may count as substantial evidence even when unaccompanied by supporting data.

If that is true, is it not obvious why one additional fact—a refusal to a request for that data—should make an expert’s testimony categorically inadequate. In some cases, the refusal to disclose data, considered along with other shortcomings, will undercut an expert’s credibility and prevent a court from finding that “a reasonable mind”could accept the expert’s testimony. But in other cases, the refusal will have no such consequence. Similarly, the refusal will sometimes interfere with effective cross-examination, which a reviewing court may consider in deciding how much to credit an expert’s opinion. But other times, even without supporting data, an applicant will be able to probe the strength of the expert’s testimony on cross-examination.Ultimately, Biestek’s error lies in his pressing for a categorical rule, applying to every case in which a vocational expert refuses a request for underlying data. The inquiry, as is usually true in determining the substantiality of evidence, is case-by-case. It takes into account all features of the vocational expert’s testimony, as well as the rest of the administrative record, and defers to the presiding ALJ, who has seen the hearing up close.

     By the way, here's an excerpt from the dissent of Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ginsburg:

 ... Veteran Social Security practitioners must be feeling a sense of déjà vu. Half a century ago, Judge Henry Friendly encountered Kerner v. Flemming, 283 F. 2d 916 (CA2 1960). There, the agency’s hearing examiner offered “nothing save [his own] speculation” to support his holding that the claimant “could in fact obtain substantial gainful employment.” Id., at 921. The Second Circuit firmly explained that this kind of conclusory claim is insufficient to meet the substantial evidence standard. In response,the Social Security Administration began hiring vocational experts, like the one in this case, to document the number of jobs available to a given claimant. But if the government can do what it did in this case, it’s hard to see what all the trouble was for. The agency might still rest decisions on a hunch—just so long as the hunch comes from an agency contractor rather than an agency examiner. ...

     Justice Sotomayor also dissented separately but mostly agreed with Justice Gorsuch. It sound odd for Gorsuch, Ginsburg and Sotomayor to be on the same side but Social Security cases don't fall easily into some simple liberal-conservative dichotomy.