Game theory is the study of the ways in which interacting choices of economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents, where the outcomes in question might have been intended by none of the agents.What does this have to do with Social Security hearings? The answer to that question rests in a different question: is the agency ambivalent to the outcome of disability claims or is the agency subtly intent on maintaining allowance rates at certain levels to placate the public and policy makers? Whether this perception applies in the macro or the micro (case-by-case), it is palpable.
Our fellow travelers tell me that their Achilles Heel is the cross-examination of vocational experts. With that self-deprecating confession in the context of game theory, we can now examine the rate at which ALJs call vocational experts at disability hearings;
Expert Year Rate
Vocational Expert 1990 36%
Vocational Expert 1991 38%
Vocational Expert 1992 44%
Vocational Expert 1993 44%
Vocational Expert 1994 42%
Vocational Expert 1995 43%
Vocational Expert 1996 42%
Vocational Expert 1997 45%
Vocational Expert 1998 45%
Vocational Expert 1999 47%
Vocational Expert 2000 50%
Vocational Expert 2001 51%
Vocational Expert 2002 55%
Vocational Expert 2003 57%
Vocational Expert 2004 59%
Vocational Expert 2005 59%
Vocational Expert 2006 68%
Vocational Expert 2007 70%
Vocational Expert 2008 72%
Vocational Expert 2009 73%
Vocational Expert 2010 76%
Vocational Expert 2011 83%
Vocational Expert 2012 87%
Vocational Expert 2013 89%
Vocational Expert 2014 92%
Cross-examination of vocational experts has grown in importance. We had the VE in half the cases in 2000 and now we have a VE in almost every case. This observation heightens the importance of the VE at the hearing, transferring more of the decision outcome to the expert and the need to present conflicting evidence to the ALJ.
That conflicting evidence must focus on the inability of the vocational expert to extrapolate the local experience to the national economy through a reliable method. But when the nation data conflicts with the stated extrapolation, the published national data should always win. The DOT/SCO is out-of-date. The charts observes:
The use of vocational experts by ALJs has increased greatly since 1980, and they are now used in over three-fourths of all ALJ hearings, even though they rely on an outdated Dictionary of Occupational Titles to support their testimony.We must submit rebuttal evidence in disability hearings to the ALJ. Must must establish the lack of reliable method for extrapolating local experience to the national economy. Or we will lose benefits for people that do not have the ability to engage in substantial gainful activity ... the social contract framed by the Social Security Act falls into breach.
_______________________________________________________
SUGGESTED CITATION:
Lawrence Rohlfing, Vocational Experts at Every Hearing -- Almost, California Social Security Attorney (November 23, 2019),
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2019/11/vocational-experts-at-every-hearing.html