Addresser -- A Persistent Favorite of Vocational Witnesses

Assume a person of the same age, education, and work experience of the claimant and assume that the person is limited to sedentary work, sitting six hours in an eight-hour day, frequent handling, frequent fingering, and limited to simple work with no more than occasional interactions with coworkers, supervisors, and the public. Any work?

That person could work as an addresser representing 30,000 jobs in the national economy. 

Is that occupation performed as described in the DOT.

Sometimes workers use typewriters and hand-address labels and envelopes. Sometimes the worker will simply apply labels to envelopes, packages, and cards.

We have heard the mantra. It is nonsense. It is also the recommended explanation that SSA gives to VW in their training. Let's also beat them at their own game.

SkillTRAN estimates that addresser works in eight industries and is also self-employed for a total of 1,952 jobs. Self-employed work is not unskilled work -- it is running a business. Most of the jobs exist in local government, 1,253 jobs. SkillTRAN does not support the existence of 30,000 addresser jobs. 

The OEWS estimates 36,030 jobs for word processors and typists (SOC 43-9022). The EP, OOH, and O*NET reporting the same data set estimate 40,000 jobs. It is curious that a word processor is applying labels. There might be people applying pre-printed labels but they are not word processors and typists, they are general office clerks or mail clerks. The crosswalk places addresser in word processors and typists. The OEWS and OOH defines word processors and typists:

Use word processor, computer, or typewriter to type letters, reports, forms, or other material from rough draft, corrected copy, or voice recording. May perform other clerical duties as assigned. Excludes “Court Reporters and Simultaneous Captioners” (27-3092), “Medical Transcriptionists” (31-9094), “Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” (43-6010), and “Data Entry Keyers” (43-9021).

The O*NET omits the "excludes" portion of the description but is otherwise identical. None of the descriptions leave room for application of labels. 

The crosswalk tells us that word processors and typists contains eight DOT codes, one of them is unskilled, all are sedentary. We should doubt that all word processors and typists are unskilled addressers. 

The 2023 ORS confirms that word processors and typists represent sedentary work in greater than 99.5% of jobs. Call it 100% and move on. The ORS estimates that 26.3% of jobs have up to one month of training. Semi-skilled and skilled work represent 70.6% of jobs. The "less than" estimate of 10% of jobs with a short demonstration (up to four hours) contains all the standard error. If the five state estimates are accurate, the residual is 3.1% of jobs. Let's round up and call it 30% of jobs are unskilled. That means that 10,800 jobs are sedentary and unskilled. Call that progress. 

The ORS describes greater than 50% of jobs have a choice of sitting or standing, less than 50% do not have a choice. Word processors and typists sit 75% of the day at the 10th percentile and more than 75% of the day at all other reported percentiles. Because the "choice" of sitting or standing is "when" and not "how much," the conclusion would leave a person limited to six hours of sitting in a day to 1,080 jobs. 

The O*NET confirms the obvious -- clerical employees work together with other employees. Word processors and typists have constant contact with other in 69% of jobs and most of the time in 31% of jobs. Any limitation on contact or interaction with others eliminates all jobs. The ORS describes all jobs as requiring at least basic people skills. The ORS states that word processors and typists have verbal interactions less than hourly in 23.8% of jobs. The ORS might lead to 2,400 jobs. 

Finally, my favorite source of job numbers. The OEQ assumes 258,841 word processor and typist jobs with one-eighth of them sedentary and unskilled, to wit 32,385 jobs. The SOEUQ suggests 22,695 jobs. Both sources claim reliance on the OES which is the OEWS. We started with the OEWS -- 36,030 jobs total. 

The existence of 30,000 addresser jobs is not sustainable. The only source consistent with that estimate is the OEQ. The SOEUQ contradicts that estimate and comes from the same publisher. Both sources state reliance on the OES, which does not exist. The OEWS and the EP/OOH/O*NET are wholly inconsistent with the OEQ/SOEUQ. And we end where we started, word processors and typists do not affix labels to envelopes, packages, and cards. That is not their job.

The Emergency Message tells the adjudicator to get a further explanation for addresser. When the adjudicators suggest and explanation without looking at the occupational description, we end with a conspiracy to commit idiocy. SSA should go back to the promise made almost 50 years ago -- take administrative notice of jobs, requirements, and job numbers. 

Disgusted.

___________________________


Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Addresser -- A Persistent Favorite of Vocational Witnesses, California Social Security Attorney (September 12, 2025) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com


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

What's Wrong with SSR 24-3p?

 SSR 24-3p introduces a new interpretation of the stable administrative notice regulation, 20 CFR 404.1566(d). The Commissioner has long held as a matter of law to the proposition that when it comes to unskilled sedentary, light, and medium work, the Commissioner will take administrative notice of reliable governmental and other (private) published data for the requirements and numbers of jobs. SSR 00-4p responded to a growing number of cases -- and a split in the circuits -- that the ALJ must address conflicts between vocational testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(1). The Commissioner conceded to the fact that the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO) was part of the single data set. SSR 00-4p imposed on the ALJ the duty to investigate the existence of a conflict or apparent conflict and to resolve that conflict based on evidence. 

But the DOT and its dataset never stated job numbers, never. Job numbers are now and in 1978 stated in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) and County Business Patterns (CBP). 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(2), (5).Now, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes online the Employment Projections (EP) and the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS, formerly the OES). 

Labor abandoned the DOT and its data set never updating the DOT fourth edition, revised published in 1991 or the SCO published in 1993. Labor transferred responsibility of the Employment Training Administration from the DOT to the Occupational Information Network (ONET). Recognizing the problem that 10,000 of the 13,000 DOT codes had a date last updated of 1977, the Commissioner was forced to collaborate with Labor to develop a new data set -- the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS). 

Private sources published data as well. United Stat Publishing published and publishes what is now known as the Occupational Employment Quarterly (OEQ) in various formats for national, state, and local data. That publication uses the equal distribution method of estimating job numbers -- each DOT code within a Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) represents the same number of jobs. The OEQ publishes the job numbers sorted by exertion/skill combinations. United Stat Publishing also publishes the Specific Occupational Employment - Unskilled Quarterly (SOEUQ). The SOEUQ estimates sedentary occupations by industry. The SOEUQ does not state its methodology. 

SkillTRAN publishes OccuBrowse, Job Browser Pro, and OASYS. The latter two estimate job numbers by DOT code. SkillTRAN uses a SOC/OEWS code intersection with selected industries (NAICS codes) and uses equal distribution to estimate the number of jobs per DOT code at those SOC-NAICS intersections. SkillTRAN uses a proprietary and unpublished methodology and does not use the data from the EP or OEWS that publish SOC-NAICS data. SkillTRAN uses the CBP to modify the data. The SkillTRAN SOC-NAICS data resembles but does not duplicate either the EP or OEWS SOC-NAICS data. 

That is the basic lay of the data. Job requirements are still found in the DOT and the Commissioner clings to that data set. Job requirements are found with current data in the ONET and the ORS. Job numbers are still found in the OOH and CBP -- they are up to date -- as well as the EP and OEWS. Three data sets for requirements and four data sets for job numbers. No one should use the OEQ for any purpose. JBP and OASYS continue to have utility for stating the SOC-NAICS intersection job numbers but does not parse that data based on occupational classifications nor erode for any impairment. JPB and OASYS are starting points. 

Here is the problem. The vocational witness claims to have considered the broad range of data along with their vast (local and anecdotal) experience to derive a job numbers based on no discernible methodology. Some will default to JBP/OASYS. That is at least a defensible starting point. Some will claim that the OEQ remains in the mix. That is bogus. 

And the ALJ corps blindly accepts testimony that is incoherent and meaningless. The witnesses are not consistent across time. They are not consistent with each other according to the cases. Because the claimants have privacy of their medical data, we never get to see the testimony that the witnesses give in different cases or to compare different witnesses in same and similar cases. The system lacks accountability and reliability. The system invoked by SSR 24-3p creates vocational witness lottery. That is not a system of administrative justice; it is legalized gambling with people's lives and the social safety net. 

But I never get passionate about these issues. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, What's Wrong with SSR 24-3p?, California Social Security Attorney (February 26, 2025)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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

Social Security Ruling 24-3p -- Reliable Sources of Rebuttal Evidence

I am reminded of Game of Thrones, "winter is coming." And so is SSR 24-3p. We discussed the ruling in the Zoom meeting on December 17, 2024. If you did not get a chance to participate (we had over 170 attendees at different points), it is available. The question is how to prepare for the winter that is coming, what are the reliable data sources that we can use and request administrative notice? 

    1. Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) 

We addressed the ORS in May 2022. The hyperlink to the Handbook of Methods now opens the version last modified on January 29, 2024. That is the beauty of links to pages that change without changing their address. The ORS responds to the question of reliability of its calculations. 

The ORS provides occupation information at the SOC code 

    2. Occupational Information Network (O*NET)

SSA has long eschewed use of the O*NET because it does not fit the Appendix 2 guidelines. That does not mean that the O*NET is not useful for non-exertional limitations and assessing the incidence of full-time work. It is reliable and used by rehabilitation professionals. The O*NET provides occupation information at the SOC code plus two more digits (typically .00), making the SOC code an O*NET code. 

On November 14, 2024, OMB approved a three-year extension of the O*NET Data Collection effort. In 2023, the O*NET project sought OMB approval for this extension. As part of the clearance process, public comments were sought on the data collection. A Federal Register Notice, published on July 31, 2023, announced the availability to the public of the O*NET "Information Collection Request" (ICR). A second Federal Register Notice, published on January 17, 2024, announced an additional comment period which concluded on February 16, 2024.

The 2024 OMB Clearance Package is available on the O*NET. 

    3. Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS)

SSR 24-3p specifically mentions the OEWS. The OEWS provides job numbers at the occupation-industry intersection (SOC-NAICS) in a searchable format not easily accessed. 

    4. Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH)

The administrative notice regulation identifies the OOH as an example of reliable published government data. 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(5). It is updated about every two years.

    5. Employment Projections (EP)

The OOH reports and links to the EP for its current job numbers and 10-year projections. It is updated about every two years. The EP tables linked in the OOH provide job numbers at the occupation-industry intersection (SOC-NAICS). 

    6. County Business Patterns (CBP)

The administrative notice regulation identifies the CBP as an example of reliable published government data. 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(2). It is updated every two years. The data is not easily accessed. CBP reports job numbers by industry (NAICS). 

    7. Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) 

The DOT continues to as a reliable source for SSA adjudication despite its age (10,000 DOT codes have a DLU of 1977 and 3,000 DOT codes have a DLU after 1977 but before 1991). 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(1).

    8. Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO)

The SCO is the DOT companion publication. It is part of the DOT dataset. Additional parts of the data set not included in the DOT and SCO are work fields; materials, products, subject matter, and services (MPSMS) codes; temperaments; and aptitudes. SSA applies WF and MPSMS as part of the transferability of skills analysis. 

    9. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS Manual 2022)

 The NAICS Manual explains the two-digit sectors, three-digit subsectors, four-digit industry groups, and five- and six-digit specific industries used by SkillTRAN, OEWS, EP, and CBP. Download it as it is amended. The last sequence was 2017 and 2022. 

    10. Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs (RHAJ)

The RHAJ explains the information contained in the complete DOT data set including the DOT, SOC, and the unselected characteristics including the WF and the MPSMS codes. Download it once. 

            Use of the data sources is not complicated but it is cumbersome the first ten times. It gets easier. A witness identifies a DOT code. Each DOT code is assigned to one or more SOC codes. SOC codes correspond directly to OEWS and O*NET codes. 

            If the case calls for discerning job numbers, those numbers appear first in the SOC codes found in the EP and OEWS. DOT codes exist in one or more industries. SkillTRAN products identify those industries. Some of those industry selections have an apparent conflict with the DOT industry designation or the job functions described. The SOC group job number is never applicable to a DOT code. 

            If the witness relies on generic SOC code assignments, the industry may not matter. It is incumbent to ask which industries the witness observed the occupation working. Both with DOT and SOC based identification, the ORS and O*NET must be used to erode the occupational base. The factors come from the residual functional capacity:

                1. Skill level

                2. Full-time vs. part-time

                3. Exertional demands

                     a. Strength

                     b. Sitting limitations

                     c. Standing (including walking) limitations

                     d. Other parts of strength not included in the sedentary-light-medium classification

                4. Non-exertional demands

                     a. Contact with others (face-to-face, telephone, or otherwise)

                     b. Interaction with the public

                     c. Teamwork limitations

                     d. Pace limitations

                     e. Postural limitations

                     f. Manipulative limitations

This list is illustrative and not exhaustive. A case might require more or less investigation. 

I recommend www.occucollect.com. We have the data accessible and presentable. 

Bon voyage. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Social Security Ruling 24-3p -- Reliable Sources of Rebuttal Evidence , California Social Security Attorney (December 23, 2024) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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

 

Have You Assumed Anything Not Stated in the Hypothetical Question?

 This is a question that I see in transcripts handled by non-attorney representatives.  I assume it comes from a training seminar at NADR.  It is the right type of question and should be the first question that is asked in any case where the vocational expert has given any testimony that does not prove the inability to perform past work or other work.  

The question is overbroad though.  It should be limited to the medical-vocational profile and includes the vocational expert summary of past relevant work.  

Have you assumed any facts about the claimant's medical-vocational profile not stated in the hypothetical question?

Something more like that.  This eliminates the assumption that a limitation to light/medium work incorporates a further limitation to standing/walking six hours in an eight-hour day.  This eliminates the assumption that a limitation to sedentary work incorporates a sitting limitation to six hours in an eight-hour day.  See SSR 83-10.   We know that the understanding of six of eight is a misreading of the ruling and a misstatement of the world of work.  Most unskilled light and medium jobs require standing/walking all or almost all of the workday; most unskilled sedentary jobs require sitting all or almost all of the day.  

Asking the "other assumptions" question is not the last stop in questioning the vocational expert.  We must ask for the foundation for the testimony -- the reliable methodology for extrapolating local experience to the national economy.  And we must submit rebuttal evidence from reliable government and private sources.  Government sources include the examples in the administrative notice regulation:  the Occupational Outlook Handbook and County Business Patterns.  Government sources include unlisted examples:  employment projections (EP), occupational employment and wage statistics (OEWS), occupational information network (O*NET OnLine), and occupational requirements survey (ORS).  

If we do not ask the assumption and foundation questions, if we do not submit rebuttal evidence to the ALJ, then we are doing a disservice to our clients.  It has come to my attention that there is an attorney that takes cases where the hearing/AC level representative does not take the case to federal court.  That attorney files two actions:  (1) a complaint for review of the COSS final decision; and (2) a complaint for malpractice and other causes of action against the representative(s).  Don't get sued, or don't lose; ask the right questions and submit the rebuttal evidence.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Have You Assumed Anything Not Stated in the Hypothetical Question?, California Social Security Attorney (September 7, 2021)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/09/have-you-assumed-anything-not-stated-in.html

Why OccuCollect Provides a More Reliable Job Number Estimate -- A Cascading of Occupational Attributes

The nature of work has changed since the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was last published in 1991 and certainly changed since 10,000 of the 13,000 DOT codes were last updated in 1977.  Occupations have become obsolete; new occupations emerged; and other occupations morphed into something new.  When we look at an occupation and ascertain its job numbers, we typically examine gross job numbers (Occupational Outlook Handbook, Employment Projections, and Occupational Employment Statistics) and then whittle that number down using industry (Employment Projections, and Occupational Employment Statistics).  Once we get that that density model of occupational groups existing within specific industries, the trick requires an estimation of the number of jobs attributable to different occupations at that occupation-industry intersection.  The Occupational Employment Quarterly uses equal distribution at the occupational level.  Job Browser Pro uses equal distribution at the occupation-industry intersection.

OccuCollect uses a different methodology.  OccuCollect examines the gross number of jobs within the occupational group and then uses either the Occupational Requirements Survey or the O*NET Resource Center report of education, training, and experience to ascertain the number of unskilled jobs within the group.  Cascading the work requirements on the Specific Vocational Preparation separates the jobs by strength, sitting, standing, walking, or manipulation ... for example.  For the cognitive-emotional requirements of work, the O*NET Work Context reports work best for establishing the amount of contact with others, interaction with the public, dealing with conflict, and the need for teamwork ... for example.

Job Browser Pro and the Occupational Employment Quarterly assume the presence of unskilled work or the presence of light work based on the number of DOT codes counted.  That method assumes a fact without evidence.  Better to use the estimates of the percentage of jobs that represent unskilled and light work from the survey of the economy conducted by the Department of Labor.

See When to Use Occu Collect.

What You Need to Effectively Cross-Examine Vocational Experts

We talked about Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) last week.  The question is how to create conflict.  It starts with basic curiosity.  "How do you know that?"  "How does that work?"  Once the curiosity takes root, we begin to use the data sources available to disassemble the vocational expert's testimony; we begin to understand.  Here's is what a representative handling Social Security disability cases needs to be minimally ready to follow along with the vocational expert's testimony on cross-examination:

1. Access to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles;
2. Access to the Selected Characteristics of Occupations; 
3. Access to the electronic files of the DOT/SCO;
4. Access to the Revised Handbook for Analyzing Jobs:
5. Access to the O*NET OnLine;
6. Access to the O*NET Resource Center;
7. Access to the Occupational Outlook Handbook; 
8. Access to the Employment Projections;
9. Access to the Occupational Employment Statistics;
10. Access to the County Business Patterns; and 
11. Access to the Occupational Requirements Survey.  

Those 11 sources form the foundation of the statistics that most vocational experts do not grasp.  They cite to the Bureau of Labor Statistics without understanding or knowing that a difference exists between the OES and the EP.  But we have to know the differences exist and the significance of those differences.  Vocational experts cite to the DOT/SCO, act as if it is controlling, and then deviate unknowingly.  We have to know when they deviate and when that deviation matters. 

For items 1-3, the U.S. Publishing provides the data in the Specific Occupation Selector.  USP uses current population surveys for job numbers.  USP uses equal distribution to estimate job numbers for occupational groups, SOC codes. 

For items 1-4, WestLaw provides the data in a single page report by DOT code.  WestLaw does not provide job numbers or access to job numbers, correlation with the O*NET, OOH, OES, EP, CBP, or the ORS. 

For items 1-4 and 9, Job Browser Pro provides access to the data.  JBP integrates the OES with industry designations found in the EP and the CBP.  JBP hyperlinks to the O*NET.  JBP lists data from out-of-date versions of the OOH.  JBP uses an intersection of occupational group and industry to estimate job numbers at the intersection and then equal distribution within that intersection of SOC and NAICS codes. 

For items 1-8 and 11, OccuCollect provides the data.  OccuCollect does not provide data for the OES (coming later this year) or integrate CBP.  The focus is on the incidence of work across the occupational group using a DOT code as an example.  OccuCollect estimates job numbers based on a cascaded approach to characteristics within an occupational group across (or ignoring) industry designations. 

We need to have access to all the data.  We need the data to ask whether occupations exist and if occupations exist, how many jobs exist.  Those are the two Biestek questions.  If we don't create a conflict, the vocational expert testimony will stand.  Create the conflict.