A Step Five Finding of Transferable Skills -- Flawed for Three Reasons

The claimant resides within the boundaries of the Ninth Circuit.  The claimant is advanced age on the alleged onset date and closely approaching retirement age before the date of decision.  The claimant has past relevant work as a production materials coordinator (DOT 221.387-046) and operations manager (DOT 186.137-014).  The ALJ found that the claimant could not perform past relevant work.  The ALJ relied on a vocational expert that an individual of the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity could perform the work of sales records clerk (DOT 216.382-062) and sales associate (DOT 299.357-014).  The vocational expert testified that in terms of adjustment, it would take the claimant a minimal amount of time to learn the other work.  This fact pattern raises three issues. 

1.  The amount of time does not dictate the amount of adjustment.  20 CFR 404.1568(d).  The regulation requires that any transferability of skills meet the requirements of the other work.  There is never a significant amount of time to learn the other work.  If it did take a significant amount of time, then the person does not have the pre-existing skill set to meet the requirements of the other work.  This person wins at age 60.  

2. Two occupations is not a range of occupations for transferability of a person of advanced age and limited to light semi-skilled or skilled work.  Appendix 2, 202.00(c); Lounsburry v. Barnhart.  Two district court cases disagree on whether two occupations represent a range.  Daniel v. Colvin and Susan M. v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 4692468 (D. Or. Aug. 24, 2018). A set of two is not a range.  It is a set of two.  A range covers a span with two end points.  A range requires a third point.  

3.  The work skills do not transfer to at least one of the occupations.  Transferability is based on Work Fields (WF) and Materials, Products, Subject Matter, and Services (MPSMS) codes as the ambiguous regulation is explained in POMS.  POMS also lists GOE codes, first three digits of the DOT code, and industry.  Those categories apply to adjustment, not plain transferability according to OIDAP.  

	DOT	WF	MPSMS
production materials coordinator	221387046	231	898
operations manager	186137014	232	894
sales records clerk	216382062	232	891
sales associate	299357014	292	888

Sales associate (telephone solicitation clerk) does not have a similar WF or MPSMS code.  Sales records clerk has the same WF as operations manager and same first two digits (similar) MPSMS code as both prior occupations.  This person wins at age 55 based on Lounsburry.  

A brief on this issue would need to break out the Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs available as a free download from your google play store.  

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, A Step Five Finding of Transferable Skills -- Flawed for Three Reasons, California Social Security Attorney (June 4, 2020) revised (June 8, 2020) 

https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-step-five-finding-of-transferable.html