Parimutuel-Ticket Checker 219.587-010 -- Sedentary Job Numbers

Parimutuel-Ticket Checker is one of those sedentary jobs that piques the interest of vocational experts to identify as sedentary unskilled work.  According to the DOT, the occupation exists in the amusement and recreation industry.  The DOT describes the occupation:

219.587-010 PARIMUTUEL-TICKET CHECKER (amuse. & rec.) alternate titles: ticket counter

    Counts and records number of parimutuel tickets cashed at race track to verify records of cashiers. Compares totals with entries on daily balance sheet. Compares each ticket with sample or examines tickets under fluorescent light to verify validity of tickets. Reports discrepancies.
GOE: 07.05.02 STRENGTH: S GED: R3 M3 L3 SVP: 2 DLU: 77

With reasoning, math, and language level 3, the occupation is not simple.  One obvious fact that jumps out from the DOT -- this work occurs at the race track and therefore is not year around work.

The O*NET puts this occupation in Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks, SOC 43-3031.  The occupation group requires some college and moderate-term on-the-job training per the OOH.  The occupational group is not unskilled and not available for a person with a high school or less education.

Of the 1,760,300 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks, 14,000 work in the amusement, gambling, and recreation industries per the Employment Projections linked in the OOH.  That is NAICS code 713000, an industry subsector.  The EP tells us that the gambling industries (except casino hotels) employ 1,700 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks, or 1.3% of total industry employment.  When we dig a little deeper into the NAICS codes, we find that this is not the right industry grouping.  The Census Bureau lists all manner of racetracks -- dogs, horses, automobiles, and others -- under NAICS code 711212.  The EP tells us that NAICS code 711200, spectator sports, employs 1,200 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks, or 0.9% of total industry employment.

County Business Patterns states that industry 711212, racetracks, had 639 establishments employing 42,728 people in all occupations.  Other industries in group 711200 are sports teams and clubs (NAICS 711211) and other spectator sports (NAICS 711219).  There are no other six-digit industry codes inside of 711200.

2012 NAICS code	Meaning of 2012 NAICS code	Year	Number of establishments	Paid employees for pay period including March 12 (number)

7112	Spectator sports	2015	4,315	128,273

711211	Sports teams and clubs	2015	1,004	68,884

711212	Racetracks	2015	639	42,728

711219	Other spectator sports	2015	2,672	16,661

Call it 1% just to make the math easy.  There are less than 430 parimutuel-ticket checkers and all other forms of bookkeepers, accounting, and auditing clerks that work in the racetracks industry.  

As always, check out the work context report for the O*NET for further information.  And remember, the ORS is coming.  

When to Cross-Examine Vocational Experts

I spend a lot of time pointing to the fallacy of most vocational expert testimony.  But that doesn't mean that the able representative should cross-examine the vocational expert in every instance about everything that is said.  The representative has to know when to bring out the long knives and when to bring out the scalpel.

Assume a younger individual limited to light exertion, standing and walking four hours in a day, simple work, and capable of occasional postural activities; limited education; and an unskilled work background.  The claimant cannot perform past relevant work.  The vocational expert identifies garbage numbers of assembly jobs that don't exist in significant numbers, and cashiers that require more complex reasoning.  If the intrepid representative knocks out all those occupations -- and clearly could -- where does that leave the claimant?  There might be light work with limited standing/walking and also SRT.  So what?  The claimant has a large swath of sedentary work available and that limited range of light work.  There is work and the statistics won't allow the claimant to get to no work by attacking the job numbers methodology.

The representative needs additional tools.  We can knock out the cashiering jobs as requiring reasoning level 3 (DOT for 211.462-010 CASHIER II) and the assembly positions as requiring a high school education and typically semi-skilled today (OOH for SOC 51-9199).  But the Commissioner assumes the presence of a significant number of jobs in the sedentary range and the hypothetical person grids as "not disabled" (Appendix 2, Rule 201.18).  Knocking out light work may be fun and good in the sport of discrediting the vocational expert, but it doesn't win the case.

The task at hand requires a different question of the vocational expert.  Has the ALJ omitted a mental limitation; a manipulative limitation; a side-effect of medication; or something else that erodes the occupational base?  Here is my list of DOT codes where the OOH classifies the work group as having no educational requirement and short-term training:

DOT	DOT TITLE	RML	SOC	DOT CODES	OOH JOBS
529.665-014	WASHROOM OPERATOR                        (sugar & confection)	211	51-9192	43	419,200
692.685-254	WINDOW-SHADE-RING SEWER       (furniture)	211	51-6031	128	153,900
713.687-034	POLISHER, IMPLANT                             (optical goods)	211	51-9022	66	15,800
739.684-162	UMBRELLA TIPPER, HAND                   (fabrication, nec)	211	51-6051	21	12,000
754.684-018	BIT SHAVER                                         (fabrication, nec)	211	51-9022	66	29,900
775.687-022	GOLD BURNISHER                                 (pottery & porcelain)	211	51-9022	66	29,900
782.687-046	SACK REPAIRER                                           (any industry)	211	51-6031	128	153,900
521687-010	ALMOND BLANCHER, HAND               (canning & preserving)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
529.687-138	LEAF TIER                                               (tobacco)	111	53-7062	48	2,441,300
559.687-014	AMPOULE SEALER                      (pharmaceuticals)	211	53-7064	59	695,400
683.687-018	HANDER-IN                        (narrow fabrics)	211	51-9198	553	419,200
685.687-014	CUFF FOLDER                                      (knitting)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
690.686-046	PLASTIC-DESIGN APPLIER                       (boot & shoe)	111	53-7063	291	104,200
690.686-066	TOGGLE-PRESS FOLDER-AND-FEEDER   (boot & shoe)	111	53-7063	291	695,400
694.686-010	CLIP-LOADING-MACHINE FEEDER (ordnance)	111	53-7063	291	695,400
712.687-034	SUTURE WINDER, HAND                      (protective devices)	211	51-9198	553	236,200
715.687-090	MOTOR POLARIZER                                  (clock & watch)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
734.687-086	SPLITTER, HAND                                      (button & notion)	111	51-9031	98	15,800
737.587-010	BANDOLEER STRAIGHTENER-STAMPER (ordnance)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
770.687-026	JEWEL STRINGER                                       (clock & watch)	211	51-9198	553	419,200
779.687-038	WAXER                                                           (glass products)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
782.687-030	PULLER-THROUGH                                     (glove & mitten)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
784.687-026	ENDBAND CUTTER, HAND   (hat & cap)	211	51-9031	98	15,800
788.687-022	BUCKLER AND LACER                                 (boot & shoe)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
788.687-114	SHANK TAPER                                             (boot & shoe)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
789.687-174	THREAD SEPARATOR                                 (textiles, other)	111	51-9198	553	419,200
920.687-030	BANDER, HAND                                                (tobacco)	211	53-7064	59	695,400
976.684-018	MOUNTER, HAND                                  (photofinishing)	211	51-9031	98	63,600

Cashiers and the Sit-Stand Option is Not Generally Available

Assume the claimant needs the opportunity to change positions every 10, 15, 30, 45 minutes, or just simply at will.  The vocational expert will likely identify the occupation of cashier II.  This occupation is a go-to for the lazy vocational expert.  With 3.4 million jobs in various cashiering occupations in the nation, a lot of them are unskilled and it is intuitive that cashiers can sit and stand at will, right?  Life is counter-intuitive.

The Occupational Requirements Survey is coming.  The ORS tells us about cashiers and the sit-stand at will option:

Occupational Requirements Survey

Series Title	:	Civilian workers; % of cashiers; sitting vs. standing/walking at will is not allowed
Series ID	:	ORUP1000066700000140
Seasonality	:	Not Seasonally Adjusted
Survey Name	:	Occupational Requirements Survey
Measure Data Type	:	Percentage
Industry	:	All workers
Occupation	:	Cashiers
Class of Worker	:	All workers
Requirements	:	Physical Requirement
Type of cases	:	Sitting vs. standing/walking at will

Latest Observation:
Annual 2016

93.0

Annual 2016 - Annual 2016
Minimum Value: Annual 2016
93.0
Maximum Value: Annual 2016
93.0
Data Availability:
2016 - 2016

The ORS tells us that 93% of jobs within the cashier occupation do not allow the opportunity to sit and stand at will.  

More bad news for the cashier occupation from the ORS. The number of jobs that require more than ≤ one month of training is 81.3%.  The 10th percentile of jobs having days of prior work experience is 90 days.  The Occupational Outlook Handbook tells us that this occupational group typically has no education requirement and short-term training.  The ORS is coming.  

Surprise and the Post-Hearing Brief

I discussed the issue of the five-day rule for the submission of evidence.  I did so as a break from the consistent drone of vocational issues.  Today, we see those two concepts get married.

The intrepid representative receives a notice of hearing containing a statement that a vocational expert will testify at the hearing.  A separate notice to the vocational expert gives that person's name and address.  The exhibit file will eventually contain a copy of the person's professional resume, or curriculum vitae.  Does the representative know what the person will say in response to any hypothetical question?  Does representative know what the hypothetical question will be as framed by the ALJ?  If the representative does not know, then any testimony given by the vocational expert constitutes SURPRISE!

HALLEX addresses supplemental and continued hearings.

I-2-6-80.Continued or Supplemental Hearing

Last Update: 9/2/05 (Transmittal I-2-64)

Citations:

• 20 CFR §§ 404.944, 416.1444.
  

Circumstances may require an ALJ to adjourn a hearing in progress and continue it at a later date, conduct a supplemental hearing, or reopen the record to receive additional evidence. If testimony at a hearing leaves unanswered questions, the ALJ may supplement the hearing record with additional oral testimony, a deposition, or additional documentary evidence.
A continuance or supplemental hearing is appropriate when:

• certain testimony or a document adduced at the hearing has taken the claimant by surprise, is adverse to the claimant's interest, and presents evidence that the claimant could not reasonably have anticipated and to which the claimant is not prepared to respond;
  

The vocational expert testimony has taken the claimant by surprise, is adverse to the claimant, and the claimant could not reasonably anticipate the content of the vocational expert testimony.

The right to a continued or supplemental hearing, or rather the right to request one, includes lesser remedies.  A lesser remedy to a continued her supplemental hearing is the submission of post-hearing evidence in the form of a request for administrative notice.  Administrative notice constitutes evidence of fact without the introduction of testimonial evidence.  Since the claimant does not want to take further of live testimony, but rather prove the existence of conflict between the vocational expert testimony and matters of administrative notice, whether the ALJ actually convenes a continued her supplemental hearing is irrelevant to the disposition that the claimant should have the right to submit a post-hearing brief that attaches, proffers, or otherwise introduces matters of administrative notice.

The matters of administrative notice include private and governmental sources of job data.  The examples provided in the regulations include the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, County Business Patterns, and the Occupational Outlook Handbook.  Because these are examples, other types of administrative notice exist.  This includes the O*NET OnLine, the Occupational Requirements Survey, and private publications.  Private publications include products published by SkillTran and U.S. Publishing.

Request an submit a post-hearing brief on vocational issues adverse to the claimant's testimony.  Be thorough and complete.

The Future of the O*NET for SSA Adjudication

Those of us paying attention know that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles is obsolete and out-of-date.  Here is what the Department of Labor says about the DOT.

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) was created by the Employment and Training Administration, and was last updated in 1991.

 SSA continues to use the DOT.  So do a few agencies within Labor.  But SSA is moving to a new tool, the Occupational Information System (OIS).  The Project states:

The Department of Labor (DOL) has not updated the DOT since 1991. In the summer of 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) finished collecting the first year of occupational data that we will use in the new OIS and started collecting the second year.  We will have our first complete set of occupational data in 2019 after BLS completes the third year of data collection. 

 We are 26 years from the advent of the O*NET and SSA continues to reject it.  In pursuit of an update for the DOT, SSA states:

1. Why are you developing a new occupational information system (OIS)?  Why can’t the Department of Labor (DOL) update the Dictionary of Occupational Tiles (DOT), or why can’t you use the Occupational Information Network (O*NET)?

• The Department of Labor (DOL) developed the DOT in the late 1930s to match jobseekers to jobs.  For almost 50 years, the DOT has been our primary source for occupational information.  The DOL discontinued updating the DOT in 1991, and replaced it in 1998 with another job placement tool, the Occupational Information Network (O*NET).  We studied whether O*NET could take the DOT’s place in our disability adjudication process but found it does not describe the physical requirements of occupations at the level of detail needed for claims adjudication. 

Which brings up back to the current question -- will SSA incorporate all the O*NET that describes the requirements of work outside the physical specificity into a new OIS?  Here is part of the vision of the OIS per SSA:

The OIS will combine the BLS data with information from the DOL Occupational Information Network (O*NET) and Military Occupations from the Military Occupational Classification (MOC) into a web-based, publicly available, information technology (IT) platform that will filter and sort the data as needed to adjudicate disability claims. 

SSA continues to state that the O*NET need modifications to be useful for disability adjudication.  

By integrating O*NET elements into the OIS, we avoid duplicating work already done by DOL. The new OIS will classify occupations using the O*NET Standard Occupational Classification System (SOC), and will use O*NET task lists, tools and technology, lay titles and other elements.

When the OIS rolls out on an internet-based platform, the O*NET will form an integral part.  So will the components of the Occupations Requirements Survey.

The only real problem with the O*NET is that it never addressed the lifting/carrying/pushing/pulling of work.  It addresses sitting, standing, walking, and a host of other useful data about work.  Get used to the O*NET now.  The OIS will marry the O*NET and ORS into a stable platform that will iron out some of the misinformation spread by vocational experts in the current paradigm.