Why Doesn't the Social Security Administration Use the O*NET?

The Department of Labor replaced the Dictionary of Occupational Titles with the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) with a preliminary version in 1997. Labor now publishes version 28 of the O*NET. The Department of Labor continues to host the DOT with a front-page statement:

Status of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; use in Social Security disability adjudications

The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) was created under the sponsorship by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and was last updated in 1991. The DOT was replaced by the O*Net, and ETA no longer supports the DOT.

The O*Net is now the primary source of occupational information. It is sponsored by ETA through a grant to the North Carolina Department of Commerce. Thus, if you are looking for current occupational information you should use the O*Net.

In the decade-long journey toward and Occupational Information System, SSA explains in the first frequently asked question:

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.

The OIDAP observed that the O*NET differed in the assessment of work requirements:

RFC/O*NET Comparison 

• RFC: Lifting, standing, sitting, pushing; postural limitations on balancing, crouching, crawling 
• O*NET Work Context: Time spent sitting, standing, climbing, walking, etc. 
• Anchors differ: RFC specific time ranges vs. O*NET relative time 

If the only measure of work that matters is full-time work, the O*NET focus on relative time is truly irrelevant. More importantly, the DOT does not discuss the amount of sitting, standing, or walking in any exertional domain except for sedentary work. 

The OIDAP described the measures of RFC to the measure of environmental conditions in the O*NET. Like the environmental demands in the SCO, the O*NET describes exposure on a range. While RFC is defined by tolerance, Labor has always framed the issue as expected exposure. The same comparison of tolerances in RFC to the demands in the DOT and SCO compared to the O*NET applies. The later statement in the FAQ and the OIDAP observation about skill level remain the two issues that prevent application of the O*NET as the foundation of SSA's adjudication of disability. 

That the O*NET does not provide an adequate basis for assessing skill and exertion does not translate to the conclusion that the O*NET does not provide useful data for understanding current occupational information framed in the Work Context reports. 

Representatives should not use SVP estimates because those estimates apply to a wide range of work. Representatives should not use the standing, walking, and running estimates to gauge the difference between light, medium, and heavy work. 

Representatives should use the O*NET to assess the required need for contact or interaction with other people, dealing with the public, and teamwork. Representatives should use the O*NET to separate out part-time versus full-time work. Representatives can use the O*NET to narrow the range of sedentary work. It is clear (to me) that the O*NET meets the definition of reliable government publications subject to administrative notice under 20 CFR 404.1566(d). 

The DOT contains almost 13,000 codes. The DOT has a date last updated of 1977 for 10,000 codes. The use of 46-year-old data is not reliable and does not satisfy the reasonable mind test. Recognizing the limitations of the O*NET does not justify reverting back to the DOT and pretending that it covers the data points not contemplated in 1977. 

"Thus, if you are looking for current occupational information you should use the O*Net."

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Why Doesn't the Social Security Administration Use the O*NET?, California Social Security Attorney (October 18, 2023)

https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.