Documented Occupational Erosion Using BLS Data Accepted by the ALJ

I had a telephone hearing with an ALJ. Judge states that he found the pre-hearing brief persuasive and intends to award benefits for a younger individual, high school education in a foreign country, illiterate in English, past work semi-skilled and light. The residual functional capacity is for a limited range of light work: standing two hours; walking two hours. Clearly a mixed bag on the medical-vocational criteria. I attach an everything report from OccuCollect.com for the two occupations cited. The everything report includes the DOT, SCO, OOH, O*NET, and ORS data along with calculations for the common factors encountered. With those reports attached, here is the argument presented, the client's name replaced with CLAIMANT, to protect privacy:

The prior vocational expert testified to assembler of plastic hospital products (DOT 712.687-010) representing 115,000 jobs; assembler, electrical accessories (DOT 729.687-010) representing 20,000 jobs. The testimony is easily contradicted and rendered feeble. It is not substantial evidence. You should find CLAIMANT disabled under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, Rule 201.17 by analogy.

1. Assembler of Plastic Hospital Products

Assembler of plastic hospital products is a light unskilled occupation. DICOT 712.687-010. Assembler of plastic hospital products belongs to the occupational group of production workers, all other (SOC 51-9199). Production workers, all other represents a large occupational group containing 1,590 DOT codes at all levels of exertion and skill. O*NET OnLine, DOT crosswalk, 51-9199. The Occupational Outlook Handbook describes production workers, all other, as representing 244,700 jobs in the nation with a typical educational requirement of a high school diploma or equivalent and typical on-the-job training of moderate-term — more than 30 days and up to one year. Occupational Outlook Handbook (2018), 51-9199.

Production workers, all other, have no minimum educational requirement in 49.1% of jobs. They require literacy in 31% of the jobs. That leaves 18.1% of the jobs is not requiring literacy. Production workers, all other, engage in unskilled work in 53% of jobs. Production workers, all other, engage in medium work in 63.9% of jobs. Production workers, all other, stand/walk 6.75 hours per day at the 25th percentile; 7.92 hours per day at the 50th percentile; and 8.0 hours per day at the 75th and 90th percentiles. There is no significant range of work in the occupational group of production workers, all other, that permit standing/walking equal to or less than four hours in an eight-hour day. Occupational Requirements Survey (2018), 51-9199.00.

2. Assembler of Electrical Accessories I

Assembler of electrical accessories I is a light unskilled occupation. DICOT 729.687-010. Assembler of electrical accessories I belongs to the occupational group of electrical and electronic equipment assemblers (SOC 51-2022.00). Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers is a large occupational group containing 61 DOT codes at all levels of exertion and skill. O*NET OnLine, DOT crosswalk, 51-2022. The Occupational Outlook Handbook describes electrical and electronic equipment assemblers as representing 218,900 jobs in the nation with a typical educational requirement of a high school diploma or equivalent and typical on-the-job training of moderate-term — more than 30 days and up to one year. Occupational Outlook Handbook (2018), 51-2022.

Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers have no minimum educational requirement in 26.7% of jobs. Literacy is required in all, 26.7% of jobs. Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers engage in unskilled work in 29.2% of jobs. Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers engage in light work and 28.3% of jobs. Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers do not sit at the 10th percentile; sit for hours per day at the 50th percentile; sit 6.4 hours per day at the 75th percentile; and sit 7.2 hours per day at the 90th percentile. Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers stand/walk 1.6 hours per day at the 25th percentile; 4.8 hours per day at the 50th percentile; 7.2 hours per day at the 75th percentile; and 8.0 hours per day at the 90th percentile. Very few electrical and electronic equipment assemblers meet the residual functional capacity assessed, but none of them meet the educational deficiency of illiteracy in English. Occupational Requirements Survey (2018), 51-2022.00.

3. Conclusion

A limitation to four hours of standing/walking in an eight-hour day erases the ability to perform light work. First and foremost, the ability to stand is far more important than the ability to walk for light work. Social Security Ruling 83-10. The primary difference between light and sedentary work is standing/walking. Id. You should apply Grid rule 201.17 and find CLAIMANT disabled.

The ALJ directed the vocational expert to the brief in the E section.  The vocational expert confirmed that the person could not perform any identifiable work.  Hearing concluded. 

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Documented Occupational Erosion Using BLS Data Accepted by the ALJ, California Social Security Attorney (March 19, 2020)
http://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/03/documented-occupational-erosion-using.html

Ford v. Saul and the Five-Day Rule for VE Rebuttal

Ford v. Saul holds that a request to subpoena records from the vocational expert is too late under 20 C.F.R. § 404.935(a) (the five-day rule).  We analyze why that holding is wrong and why it does not constitute law of the circuit.  

We start with our premise:  the five-day rule does not apply to rebuttal evidence at step five of the sequential evaluation process.  That position rests on plain error of law.  We start with the regulation:

When you submit your request for hearing, you should also submit information or evidence as required by § 404.1512 [§416.912] or any summary of the evidence to the administrative law judge. Each party must make every effort to ensure that the administrative law judge receives all of the evidence and must inform us about or submit any written evidence, as required in § 404.1512, no later than 5 business days before the date of the scheduled hearing. If you do not comply with this requirement, the administrative law judge may decline to consider or obtain the evidence, unless the circumstances described in paragraph (b) of this section apply.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.935(a), 416.1435(a).   The required (404.1512 and 416.912) sections describe the claimant’s responsibility:

you must inform us about:

(i) Your medical source(s);
(ii) Your age;
(iii) Your education and training;
(iv) Your work experience;
(v) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say that you became disabled;
(vi) Your efforts to work; and
(vii) Any other factors showing how your impairment(s) affects your ability to work. In §§ 404.1560 through 404.1569, we discuss in more detail the evidence we need when we consider vocational factors.

 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a)(1), 416.912(a)(1).  Paragraph (2) describes the completeness issue:

The evidence in your case record must be complete and detailed enough to allow us to make a determination or decision about whether you are disabled or blind. It must allow us to determine—

(i) The nature and severity of your impairment(s) for any period in question;
(ii) Whether the duration requirement described in § 404.1509 [§ 416.909] is met; and
(iii) Your residual functional capacity to do work-related physical and mental activities, when the evaluation steps described in § 404.1520(e) or (f)(1) [§ 416.920(e) or (f)(1)] apply.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a)(2), 416.912(a)(2).  The regulations do not impose a duty on the claimants to present evidence about the step five question before the hearing.  That duty rests on the Commissioner.  20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(b)(3), 416.912(b)(3):

In order to determine under § 404.1520(g) [§ 416.920(g)] that you are able to adjust to other work, we must provide evidence about the existence of work in the national economy that you can do (see §§ 404.1560 through 404.1569a [§§ 416.960 through 416.969a]), given your residual functional capacity (which we have already assessed, as described in § 404.1520(e) [§ 416.920(e)]), age, education, and work experience.

 The five-day rule does not apply to evidence in rebuttal to (b)(3).  The five-day rule does not embrace evidence after the step three interim finding of residual functional capacity for completeness.  While a claimant must inform the Commissioner about work experience, the evidentiary hearings typically spend time on that subject — the five-day rule does not apply to developing and completing the record for past relevant work purposes. The Commissioner recognizes the problem of surprise at a hearing generally.  81 Fed. Reg. 90987, 90991 (Dec. 16, 2016):

 if an ALJ introduces new evidence at or after a hearing, the claimant could use the exception in 20 CFR 404.935(b)(3) and 416.1435(b)(3) to submit rebuttal evidence. The claimant could also rebut evidence introduced at or after the hearing by submitting a written statement to the ALJ. As  previously mentioned, we added language to 20 CFR 404.949 and 416.1449 to clarify that the 5-day requirement applies only to pre-hearing written statements, not to post-hearing written statements.

Ford v. Saul, ___ F.3d ___, part D (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2020) cites the five-day rule for the purposes of requesting a subpoena.  Ford does not analyze the scope of §404.1512.  Ford does not control the analysis of §404.1512 to the five-day rule by failing to discuss it.  See Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber,328 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (“As we have noted before, ‘where a panel confronts an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and resolves it after reasoned consideration in a published opinion, that ruling becomes the law of the circuit, regardless of whether doing so is necessary in some strict logical sense.’” (quoting United States v. Johnson,256 F.3d 895, 914 (9th Cir. 2001) (Kozinski, J. concurring)).  Ford does not confront the scope of §404.1512 and fails the law of the circuit test. 

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Ford v. Saul and the Five-Day Rule for VE Rebuttal, California Social Security Attorney (March 13, 2020) edited (March 13, 2020)
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/03/ford-v-saul-and-five-day-rule-for-ve.html

Douglas Prutting, Vocational Expert and Probable Prevaricator

Vocational experts are not used to being challenged.  We need to make the challenge ordinary.  The time investment up front is extraordinary but the dividends in the long run will more than compensate for the initial investment.  Douglas Prutting, Colorado Springs, Colorado, is the example of the day.

We get to a light residual functional capacity, simple repetitive tasks, minimal educational requirements, and limited to standing/walking four hours in a workday.  Prutting identifies small products assembler I (DOT 706.684-022).  Prutting uses Job Browser Pro.

Which version?
 The latest version that came out in July 2019.  

Houston, we have a problem.  The latest version of JBP did not come out in July 2019.  Version 1.7 came out in October 2019.

How many jobs does JBP state there are for small product assembler?
218,000.

Is that for the entire SOC group (51-9199) and not the for the DOT code?
Yes.  

How many jobs does JBP estimate exists for small product assembler?
I don't know how to get that number.  

JBP uses the OES job numbers.  JBP is plain about that.  The current OES job number for production workers, all other is 230,760.  I do not have to check JBP, I know that Prutting is not looking at a 2019 release of JBP, either the last installment of ver. 1.6 or ver. 1.7.  He is not truthful.

The May 2014 OES data, released by BLS in May 2015, estimates the number of production workers, all other (SOC 51-9199) at 217,500.  No other year comes close.  Data for years after 2014 are too high.  Data for 2013 reports 206,600 jobs.  Prutting is using the JBP release from 2015 and has either never bothered to check current data or never updated JBP, another misstatement.

Douglas Prutting is a prevaricator.  It is just that plain.  He got caught using old data and resorted to the natural human instinct of self-defense by speaking falsely.  Prutting probably is not used to anyone challenging him or caring that he lies.  But I do.  I care.  And so should the agency.  The ALJ has access to JBP at their desk on the fly and can check witness testimony that relies on JBP.  But they don't care.  Neither does the agency.  Public confidence in the system demands that we expose false testimony and demand that Prutting and his ilk speak truthfully and accurately.  The quality of life of disabled people depends on it.  In an age of budget retraction, we have to prove disability when the person cannot work.

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Douglas Prutting, Vocational Expert and Probable Prevaricator, California Social Security Attorney (March 4, 2020)
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/03/douglas-prutting-vocational-expert-and.html

Ford v. Saul -- What Jobs and How Many?

The Ninth Circuit decided Ford v. Saul on February 20, 2020.  Ford is capable of a limited range of sedentary work.  We consult the District Court decision to fill in some of the gaps.  Ford can perform sedentary work with no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; no climbing of stairs, crouching, crawling, or kneeling; occasional stooping; frequent handling and fingering; avoiding concentrated exposure to extreme cold; understand, remember, and carry out simple and routine tasks; no fast-paced production work; superficial contact with the public; can work in small groups; can interact with co-workers and supervisors to complete tasks.

The Ninth Circuit reports that the vocational expert identified 130,000 jobs as an addresser and 9,800 jobs as ink-printing.  Addresser belongs to the occupatinal group of word processors and typists (SOC 43-9022)..  Ink printer belongs to the occupational group of printing press operators (SOC 51-5112).

Addresser is obsolete.  Addresser is a word processor and typist (SOC 43-9022) occupation.  Word processors and typists contains eight DOT codes.  BLS reported in May 2015 (data that would have been published in 2016 and have been the most current data in the November 2016 hearing) that there were 68,660 word processors and typists in the nation.  The OOH relied on the 2014-24 employment projections as of November 2016, estimating the number of word processors and typists at 90,700.  That would represent the number for the O*NET OnLine as of November 2016.  The two BLS sources (EP and OES) do no support the 130,000 jobs as an addresser in 2016 or even 130,000 jobs in the group of word processors and typists.  The vocational expert lied and the failure to submit available evidence from the BLS allowed the witness to get away with it. 

An “everything report” from OccuCollect gives the data that we need to destroy the testimony.  The O*NET reports that addresser is the only unskilled DOT code.  The O*NET Resource Center reports that 51.54% of word processors and typists have 30 days or less of on-the-job training; 4.05% do not require related work experience of more than 30 days; and 51.57% of jobs require a high school education or less.  SVP is a function of training, work experience, and education.  The SVP can never be lower than the smallest component.  The exception is the exchange of experience or education where those criteria are treated interchangeably as qualifications.  Then the lowest of the two defines the SVP.  For word processors and typists, the requirement for six months to two years of related work experience means that most of the jobs are skilled.  Relatively few (8.12%) of word processors and typists are semi-skilled. 

The O*NET Resource Center does not support the presence of more than 4,500 addresser jobs in the nation in 2016. Current OOH job numbers permit the inference of 3,000 addressers.  Current OES job numbers permit the inference of 2,600 addressers.  The testimony of the vocational expert in Ford, that there were 130,000 addresser jobs, is patently false. 

Ink printer is a printing press operator (SOC 51-5112) occupation.  The ORS component of the  “everything report” from OccuCollect tells us that the OOH describes printing press operators stand/walk five hours per day at the 10th percentile.  Printing press operators engage in unskilled work in 23.8% of jobs.  Printing press operators engage in medium work in 62.7% of jobs and lift up to 25 pounds at the 25th percentile.  That data point tells us that at least 13% of the jobs require heavy or greater exertion (62% above the 25th percentile is 87%).  If there are sedentary printing press operators, they represent less than 10% of the jobs.  The testimony that ink printer represent 9,800 jobs is possible. 

Ford waived the important issues at the hearing level.  The vocational expert gave unreliable testimony.  The court embarrassed itself by allowing junk to decide the entitlement to benefits.  SSA embarrassed itself by defending that kind of testimony.  The public confidence in the system of administrative justice should go down. 

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Ford v. Saul -- What Jobs and How Many?, California Social Security Attorney (March 1, 2020) edited (March 2, 2020),
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/03/ford-v-saul-what-jobs-and-how-many.html