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.
