Temp to Hire and Temporary Help Services -- There Is a Difference and the Latter Does Not Count for Sustained Employment

Could you please tell me how many of the jobs you identified for the occupation of small products assembler actually work in the temporary help services industry?

That is the question. If the vocational witness uses Job Browser Pro, the program will answer the question (assuming the VW knows how JBP works). If the vocational witness is not using JBP, that person will give a blank stare, silence over the phone, or have to say that he/she just doesn't know. 

The answer matters. For this example, looking at small products assembler I, the answer means the difference between significant and insignificant numbers of jobs. We start with the observations that small product assembler I falls in the production workers, all other (51-9199) classification. The Occupational Outlook Handbook (2003) (and the Employment Projections upon which the OOH is based) describe production workers all other as representing 275,300 jobs in the nation in self-employment and wage and salary employment. The manufacturing sector employs 111,200 production workers. An additional 102,000 jobs work in the administrative and support and waste management and remediation services sector. Almost all of those jobs exist in administrative and support services subsector, 101,300 jobs. The employment services industry group employs 98,400 production workers. The temporary help services sector employs 90,400 of the 102,000 jobs in the administrative and support and waste management and remediation services sector. 

The Occupational Employment and Wages (2022) reports 252,660 production workers, all other jobs. The industry that employs the largest number of production workers is ... employment services at 99,840 jobs. Over a third of jobs for production workers exist in this industry. 

The OEWS reports that employment services employs 99,840 production workers, all other. Temporary help services employ over 90% of them, 91,950 production workers. Employment services reports all the job numbers for that industry group with an additional note:

Industries within NAICS 561300 - Employment Services

• NAICS 561320 - Temporary Help Services

The industry group contains the specific industry. This is called "drilling down." The sector includes one or more subsectors which include one or more industry groups which includes one or more industries (five digits) which may include more specific industry designations (six non-zero digits).

Let's go back to small product assembler. The non-JBP sources are too varied with anecdotal and unsupportable methodologies to even begin to guess. I start with JBP because it is the only published methodology that does not have an apparent conflict with the DOT designation of industry (in the parentheses) or the narrative description of what and where the occupation exists. JBP reports a 2023 job number for small products assembler I of 16,138 full-time jobs. The very long list of industries (58) contains the 56th entry, temporary help services representing 11,593 jobs. 

For purposes of discussion, we assume that the industry selections and the DOT assignments within each industry selection are appropriate. The question is simple, do jobs in the temporary help services industry (NAICS 5621320) count at step five of the sequential evaluation process -- the existence of other work that fits the claimant's medical-vocational profile. 

We know that residual functional capacity represents the most that a person could do on a sustained basis under SSR 83-10, 96-9p. SSR 96-8p makes clear that sustained employment means regular and continuing, eight hours a day, five days a week, or an equivalent work schedule. Does part-time work count? Only for past relevant work that was done on a part-time basis according to fn. 2. The exceptions to regular and continuing work for part-time work and seasonal work apply to past relevant work under POMS DI 24005.015. Even when the regulations permitted consideration of a capacity to perform part-time work at step five, that permission extended to "reasonably regular part-time work."68 Fed. Reg. 51153, 51158 (Aug. 6, 2003) (deleting “reasonably regular part-time” work from 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1562, 416.962). Work that is not reasonably regular has never counted at step five of the sequential evaluation process.  

The North American Industry Classification System (2022) describes the industries that exist in North America (the United States, Canada, and Mexico). Canada and Mexico use the five-digit system. The US uses the six-digit system to provide additional granular data. There are other differences described in the introduction at page 4. 

For purposes of understanding the 11,000+ jobs attributed to small products assembler I in the temporary help services industry, we need to understand that the industry designation means. The first two digits (56) refer to administrate and support and waste management and remediation services, the industry sector. The first three digits (561) refer to administrative and support services), the industry subsector. The first four digits (5613) refers to employment services, the industry group. The five (56132) and six-digit (561320) designations describe temporary help services, the specific industry. NAICS Manual at 61-62. The NAICS Manual differentiates other industries that the supply of its own employees for limited periods of time to supplement the work force of a client's business are classified in Industry 56132, temporary help services. NAICS Manual at 487 (56131 and 561311), 488 (561312). Temporary help services means:

This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in supplying workers to clients' businesses for limited period of time to supplement the working force of the client. The individuals provided are employees of the temporary help establishment. However, these establishments do not provide direct supervision of their employees at the clients' work sites. 

NAICS Manual at 488. Workers employed in this industry must meet the physical and mental demands of multiple clients of their employer. The jobs last for indefinite but "limited periods of time." The temp to hire paradigm is classified under employment placement services (NAICS 561311) and not temporary help services (NAICS 561320). 

When the VW explains that the jobs in temporary help services are primarily temp to hire positions, the VW misunderstands or misrepresents the classificatory scheme presented by the NAICS Manual. Working for a limited time as a small products assembler I is not regular and continuing employment under SSR 86-8p. That work does not count at step five of the sequential evaluation process. 

Let's hear the witness's analysis. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Temp to Hire and Temporary Help Services -- There Is a Difference and the Latter Does Not Count for Sustained Employment, California Social Security Attorney (September 7, 2023, revised October 14, 2023) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com 

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

Beware of Independent versus Dependent Variables in Data

 The problem presented in data sets is one of correlation between two variables -- the independent and dependent nature of the variables.  To illustrate the problem, we examine Marker (DOT 369.687-026).  Labor assigns Marker to Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers (SOC 51-9061).  Labor assigns 782 DOT codes to this group, 173 of which are unskilled.  

The 2020 Occupational Outlook Handbook states that 557,900 jobs function as Inspectors.  The 2020 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics estimates 549,200 jobs as Inspectors.  The 2021 Occupational Requirements Survey states that 18.1% of the jobs are unskilled.  The ORS estimates that 30% of inspectors engage in medium work.

If there is no correlation between skill level and exertion -- the data points are independent of one another -- the number of unskilled medium jobs is 5.43% of the total number of jobs, less than 30,000 jobs.  If the correlation between skill and exertion is 1:1, all unskilled jobs require medium exertion, then the number of medium unskilled jobs is 18.1% of the total number of jobs, less than 100,000 jobs.  The correlation is neither zero nor 1:1.  The typical vocational expert lacks the expertise to state the correlation or interdependence.  There are likely unskilled sedentary, light, and heavy jobs.  

Adding the variable of standing (which includes walking) adds another layer of complexity.  The ORS states that Inspectors engage in sedentary work in 10.4% of jobs and light work in 48.6% of jobs.  That leaves roughly 12% of jobs as indeterminate.  It is also worth noting that Labor has redefined light work as including lifting and carrying up to 25 pounds occasionally.  

It is clear that 75th and 90th percentiles capture all of the sedentary jobs, sitting 75% to 90% of the day.  That range also captures jobs that require more than sedentary exertion because the ORS reports 10.4% of jobs require sedentary exertion.  Some of the jobs require light and might require higher levels of exertion.  Sitting and sedentary exertion have a correlation that is embedded in the definition of sedentary work.  The question turns on the other 90% of jobs.  

The 75th and 90th percentiles for standing describe Inspectors as standing 85% or more of the workday.  The 50th percentile states that Inspectors stand 75% of the workday, six hours of an eight-hour day.    The question is whether sitting 25% of the workday at the median correlates to or is dependent on the exertion otherwise expended:  light; medium; or heavy.  The Commissioner defines light and medium work the same, standing six hours and may sit intermittently during the remaining time in SSR 83-10.  The ruling permits the presence of light work with long sitting but does not permit the presence of medium work sitting most of the day.  While this blog has argued that SSR 83-10 is wrong and entitled to no deference or respect on the standing/walking issue, unskilled medium sit-down work probably does not exist.  

The inference that flows suggests that some indeterminate range of jobs above the 25th and below the 75th percentiles permit standing/walking less than or equal to 75% of the day or six hours.  The 75th percentile and above require more than six hours of standing.  The 25th percentile (unstated by estimated from its mirror image of sitting at the 75th percentile) requires prolonged sitting.  

Do we know the correlation or dependence ratios?  Not for medium and light work, we just don't without Labor giving us raw data that would take a statistician to understand.  But, our clients do not have the burden of production or proof at step five, the existence of other work.  So here is the suggested methodology:

    1. Ask the VE to identify the applicable and replicable methodology.

    2. Ask the VE to state whether the methodology is well-accepted.

    3. Ask the VE to assume that the OOH, OEWS, and ORS are accurate.  Assuming that evidence is true, ask for a statement of how the testimony given is consistent with the data published by the Department of Labor.  

    4. Ask the VE to explain how the data points presented in the hypothetical question correlate -- are these data points dependent or interdependent.  

We actually want a failure of the VE to be able to answer question 4.  That permits us to argue that the ALJ should treat them as wholly independent.  That permits if not requires as cascaded application of the job numbers by each factor, one after another.  

This is complicated and most will not feel comfortable the first dozen attempts.  Like anything difficult, it will take practice and perfection.  We can, we must, climb the mountain.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Beware of Independent versus Dependent Variables in Data, California Social Security Attorney (November 29, 2021)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com  

Applegate v. Saul -- Bottling Line Attendant

 Applegate v. Saul, yet another unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum that illustrates the need for a full-throated attack of vocational expert prevarication.  Because of the brevity  of unpublished memoranda, we start with the District Court's discussion of step five, the findings of other work.  

However, the third identified job, bottling line attendant, has a Reasoning Level of 1. The vocational expert testified that there were 45,000 such jobs available in California and more than 300,000 such jobs in the United States. AT 29, 86. Because at least one viable job existed in sufficient numbers, any error as to the reasoning levels of the other two jobs was harmless. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(b) (providing that "[w]ork exists in the national economy when there is a significant number of jobs (in one or more occupations) having requirements which you are able to meet") (emphasis added). See also Thomas v. Comm'r, 480 F3d. Appx. 462, 464 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming ALJ even though claimant could not perform two identified jobs because she could perform the remaining job of housekeeper, which existed in significant numbers in the national economy).

Bottling line attendant represents 45,000 jobs in California and 300,000 jobs in the United States.  That is untrue and unbelievable.  It is at least a disregard for the truth.  I cry "foul."

Bottling line attendant is a packer and packager, hand (SOC 53-7064) occupation.  The group represents 640,800 jobs in the nation per the OOH.  The 2019 OES estimated 633.640 jobs as a packer and packager.  The 2020 OEWS estimates 599,270 jobs.  

We are concerned with the limitations found by the ALJ:

must avoid concentrated exposure to hazards such as dangerous machinery, unprotected heights, and uneven surfaces; and can perform simple tasks in a setting with few workplace changes and no more than occasional interaction with the general public and coworkers.

 The O*NET says that about 10% of the packer and packager jobs have occasional contact with others.  The ORS says that 30% of packer and packager jobs have exposure to moving mechanical parts, most of those constantly.  The ORS classifies 32% of the jobs has requiring light exertion.  The ORS states that 17.5% of packers and packagers have SVP 1 characteristic of bottling line attendant.  

Packers and packagers has 59 DOT codes.  The idea that half of the jobs work as a bottling line attendant is a little hard to grasp.  Because of that lingering doubt, we must check the industry employment for packers and packagers.  The DOT defines bottling line attendant as occurring in the beverage manufacturing industry.  That is where we will look.  

The 2020 OEWS states that the beverage manufacturing industry employed 640 packers and packagers.  The 2019 OES states that the beverage manufacturing industry employed 580 packers and packagers.  The 2019 EP states that the beverage manufacturing industry employed 600 packers and packagers.  The 2019 CBP states that the entire beverage manufacturing industry employed 226,462 people in every occupation within the industry.  Over half the jobs work in breweries, wineries, and distilleries.  Less than 80,000 people work in soft drink, bottled water, and ice manufacturing -- in the nation in every job in the industry.  

The odds of bottling line attendant representing 45,000 jobs in California and 300,000 jobs in the nation rests between zero and none.  That testimony is false.  It is not reliable.  The vocational expert pulled it out of the hat.  

How do we beat bogus testimony?  We rely on the Occupational Outlook Handbook, v.  We must submit that evidence to the ALJ and force the ALJ to state why the agency chooses conclusory evidence from a witness over the statistical publications of the Department of Labor.  We demand administrative notice under the regulations.  

The Ninth Circuit did not regurgitate the numbers.  It would prove embarrassing to the Court to recite those kinds of numbers with a straight face.  Bottling line attendants represent 300,000 jobs in the nation.  Absurd.

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Applegate v. Saul -- Bottling Line Attendant, California Social Security Attorney (April 19, 2021) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/04/applegate-v-saul.html

Surveillance Systems Monitor -- In Transition

Surveillance-system monitor remains a popular occupation among locational experts in response to a residual functional capacity for sedentary work involving occasional use of the hands for reaching, handling, and fingering.  In the 2010 SOC, labor placed surveillance-system monitor in the group of protective service workers, all other (33- 9099.00).  The O*NET still does.   The O*NET also places surveillance- system monitor in the occupational group of school bus monitors (33- 9094.00).   The O*NET reports 145,600 employees in both occupational groups.

The Occupational Outlook Handbook reports a combination of school bus monitors and protective service workers, all other as an OEWS hybrid with a 2019 employment estimate. 

School bus monitors and protective service workers, all other

This is an OEWS hybrid and the OEWS definition can be found by following the OEWS link below

· 2019 employment: 145,600

· May 2020 median annual wage: $31,960

·       Wages come from the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program, click here for more OEWS data on this occupation

· Projected employment change, 2019–29:

·       Number of new jobs: 6,200

·       Growth rate: 4 percent (As fast as average)

·       Click here for additional projections detail

· Education and training:

·       Typical entry-level education: High school diploma or equivalent

·       Work experience in a related occupation: None

·       Typical on-the-job training: Short-term on-the-job training

· O*NET links:

·       33-9094.00 - School Bus Monitors

·       33-9099.00 - Protective Service Workers, All Other

·       33-9099.02 - Retail Loss Prevention Specialists

 

The Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) (as the successor data base to the OES) defines the hybrid group:

This occupation includes the 2018 SOC occupations 33-9094 School Bus Monitors and 33-9099 Protective Service Workers, All Other and the 2010 SOC occupation 33-9099 Protective Service Workers, All Other.

The OEWS reports employment:

Employment (1)	Employment RSE (3)	Mean hourly wage	Mean annual wage (2)	Wage RSE (3)
144,310	2.1 %	$ 17.38	$ 36,140	0.6 %

 

The OOH and OEWS make clear that the O*NET reports of occupations for both school bus monitors and protective service workers, all other, represents a duplication of a group of occupations and jobs in transition due to a change in the definitions and assignments of the SOC codes.  The 2018 SOC defines school bus monitors as:

Maintain order among students on a school bus. Duties include helping students safely board and exit and communicating behavioral problems. May perform pre trip and post trip inspections and prepare for and assist in emergency situations.

Illustrative examples: Bus Monitor

The 2018 SOC defines protective service workers, all other as:

All protective service workers not listed separately.

Illustrative examples: Warrant Server

Labor will break out the job numbers for school bus monitors from protective service workers, all other.  Hopefully, we will see that breakdown in the next data set.  Surveillance-system monitor does not fit the definition of the occupational group of bus monitors. It does fit the all other classification. Expect to see the number of jobs as a surveillance-system monitor continued to erode in the ability of people without statistical expertise to conflate job numbers either by equal distribution within an occupational group , equal distribution at the occupation-industry intersection, or some other methodology that does not take into account the existence of unskilled sedentary work as opposed to semi- skilled, skilled, light, medium, or heavy work. Heavy work is Deputy United States Marshall, classified by the DOT as requiring medium exertion.

If a vocational expert identifies surveillance-system monitor as an occupation in response to a sedentary exertional capacity with manipulative limitations but no limitation to simple or repetitive types of work, the representative must inquire diligently into the methodology used by the vocational expert to tease out the number of jobs. Experience is not enough. The vocational expert did not go around the nation with a clicker counting jobs. There is a statistical basis for estimating job numbers and the representative must demand that information.

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Surveillance Systems Monitor -- In Transition , California Social Security Attorney (April 19, 2021) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/04/surveillance-systems-monitor-in.html

Escort-Vehicle Driver -- Does Not Exist in Significant Numbers

We all have our own anecdotal experience.  "Wide Load" is the sign that we see on the back of some small car following a very large truck hauling heavy equipment or some wide load.  Those workers move that wide load during daylight hours. We have all seen it.  Certainly that trailing driver is the escort-vehicle driver described in the DOT.  But is that the only job that drivers do, every day, on a full-time basis?   We start with the DOT:

919.663-022 ESCORT-VEHICLE DRIVER (motor trans.) Drives vehicle equipped with warning lights and signs to escort trucks hauling mobile homes on public thoroughfares: Precedes escort and maintains specified distance between pilot vehicle and escort to provide warning to other motorists and to clear traffic at locations. Communicates by two-way radio with truck and other pilot vehicle drivers to coordinate changes in speed and route, emergencies, or traffic congestion. 

GOE: 05.08.03 STRENGTH: S GED: R2 M1 L2 SVP: 2 DLU: 77

Sedentary, unskilled, reasoning level 2.  Sounds simple enough.  Despite the described use of using a radio to communicate, the SCO states that this occupation requires no talking or hearing.  Just a tad inconsistent unless talking and hearing do not include giving and receiving instructions.  

Escort-vehicle driver is a light truck driver occupation (SOC 53-3033).  The OOH describes the group as having typical education requirement of a high school or equivalent education and short-term on-the-job training. Light truck drivers represent over 1 million jobs.  The Employment Projections tell us that 15.7% of incumbents have less than a high school education. 

The O*NET states that light truck drivers have contact with others half the time or more in all jobs.  Light truck drivers work with a group or team in 98% of jobs.  Light truck drivers work full-time in 51% of jobs.  Light truck drivers sit continually or almost continually in 8% of jobs.  

The O*NET Resource Center lists the requirements of light truck driver.  Light truck drivers have on-the-job training one month or less in 69% of jobs.  Light truck drivers do not require related work experience of more than one  month in almost 40% of jobs.  Light truck drivers require a high school diploma or less in 97% of jobs.  

The Occupational Requirements Survey describes light truck drivers as engaged in SVP 6 work in just under 12% of jobs.  We find no description for the other 88% of jobs.  Light truck drivers lift up to 50 pounds at the 10th percentile and up to 70 pounds at the median and above.  Light truck drivers sit 75% of the day at the 90th percentile.  

Escort-vehicle driver exists in the motor transportation industry.  Census and the OES classify Truck Transportation at NAICS 484000.  The OES states that this industry group employs 51,410 light truck drivers.  County Business Patterns describes truck transportation subsector in two groups:  general freight trucking; and specialized freight trucking.  Two-thirds of the jobs exist in general freight trucking.  The NAICS Manual points to specialized freight trucking, local as the correct industry (NAICS 484220).  Specialized freight (except used goods) trucking, local employs 222,047 workers.  The Employment Projections state that 3.4% of truck transportation workers have employment as a light truck driver.  Most workers have employment as heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers (59% of jobs).  

We apply the math: 222,047 x 3.4% = 7,772.  That is not the number of escort-vehicle drivers but the maximum number of escort vehicle drivers.  Local specialized freight trucking hauls agricultural products, dump trucks, boats, livestock, and bulk liquids.  Long distance specialized freight trucking hauls automobiles, refrigerated products, liquids, waste, and hazardous materials.  Adding in long distance trucking will increase the number of jobs by 6,150 but requires more significant reductions for other products hauled.  

The data does not support a significant number of sedentary jobs.  The data does not support significant numbers of jobs within the industries appropriate to the DOT industry designation.  There does not exist a significant number of jobs that exist for escort-vehicle driver.  

Anecdotal experience and $4 buys coffee.  It is not reliable evidence upon which to adjudicate a claim worth $250K to $500K in benefits under the Social Security Act.  That is not how reasonable people handle serious affairs.  

I provided links to the original source material.  It would take hours to find all this data even if the searcher knew that the data existed.  For that reason, I recommend www.OccuCollect.com.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Escort-Vehicle Driver -- Does Not Exist in Significant Numbers, California Social Security Attorney (February 17, 2021) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/02/escort-vehicle-driver-does-not-exist-in.html

Questions and Answers from the January 15, 2021, NOSSCR Interview

 George Peimonte and I had a great discussion on the NOSSCR Zoom meeting on Friday.  I promised to answer all the questions.  Here they are:

1.     Alise Kellman 12:26 PM

If I try to say I have no objection to the VW testifying, some ALJs will ask if I object to their qualifications and if I say yes they go ballistic

I do not object to the agency calling the vocational witness and agree that the vocational witness meets the qualifications set by SSA.

 

2.     Jacqueline Justice 12:38 PM 

Since we are doing phone/zoom hearings using the O*Net seems easy during the hearing. What are some tips for using rebuttal evidence when (if?) we return to in person hearings? Laying some foundation about the statistics seems reasonable, but I am not sure how to delve this deeply into the specific jobs the VE testifies to in real time.

If your computer has internet access, you can pull up the vocational sources in real time.  If not, your smartphone substitutes.  Using your phone as the tether for your computer to the internet works as well. 

 

3.     Christine franco 12:37 PM 

it would be helpful to see someone navigating the O*NET system

Try www.occucollect.com – that’s my resource.  It puts all the data into single everything reports so that you don’t miss key data on an important part of the medical-vocational profile.  Or you can manually access the data sets individually. 

Access the O*NET at: https://www.onetonline.org/. 

Access the O*NET Resource Center at: https://www.onetcenter.org/. 

Access the OOH at: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/.

Access the Employment Projections at:  https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables.htm.

Access the ORS at:  https://www.bls.gov/ors/. 

Access the OES at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm. 

Access the DOT at: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/topics/libraries/LIBDOT. 

 

4.     Jenna Karr 12:20 PM 

You mentioned "frequent interaction in 75% of jobs." Where do you find the 75%?

For Office Helper:

 Custom Report for: 43-5021.00 - Couriers and Messengers

https://www.onetonline.org/link/custom/43-5021.00

Cognitive Work Conditions

Interpersonal Relationships	%	Response
Contact With Others — How much does this job require the worker to be in contact with others (face-to-face, by telephone, or otherwise) in order to perform it?	70	Constant contact with others
	29	Contact with others most of the time
	0	Contact with others about half the time
	1	Occasional contact with others
	0	No contact with others

 

For Telephone-Directory Deliverer:

Custom Report for: 51-9198.00 - Helpers--Production Workers

https://www.onetonline.org/link/custom/51-9198.00

Cognitive Work Conditions

Interpersonal Relationships	%	Response
Contact With Others — How much does this job require the worker to be in contact with others (face-to-face, by telephone, or otherwise) in order to perform it?	39	Constant contact with others
	24	Contact with others most of the time
	20	Contact with others about half the time
	17	Occasional contact with others
	0	No contact with others

 

For Addresser:

 Custom Report for: 43-9022.00 - Word Processors and Typists

https://www.onetonline.org/link/custom/43-9022.00

Cognitive Work Conditions

Interpersonal Relationships	%	Response
Contact With Others — How much does this job require the worker to be in contact with others (face-to-face, by telephone, or otherwise) in order to perform it?	69	Constant contact with others
	31	Contact with others most of the time
	0	Contact with others about half the time
	0	Occasional contact with others
	0	No contact with others

 

Frequent includes half the time and most of the time.  Not sure which occupation I mentioned in this context.   Leave a comment below. 

 

5.     Ronald Honig 12:28 PM 

Courts have found that the job of addresser does not exist in significant numbers.  Brandie K.A. v. Saul, 2020 WL 2572461, (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2020).

See also, Skinner v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 1631275, at *5 (C.D. Cal. April. 2, 2018).

 

6.     Jenna Lopes 12:04 PM 

Will the PPTs be available?

7.     From Avram Sacks to All Panelists:  12:03 PM

Are there materials?   Is a copy of the powerpoint available?  If so, please a link.  Thanks.

8.     From Richard Weishaupt to All Panelists:  01:01 PM

please give cites of all sources it went by to fast

https://www.occucollect.com/account/?page=Training.  Just sign up.  No subscription needed.  You want the Indiana Bar Occucollect Presentation Slides September 25, 2020.  https://www.occucollect.com/account/pages/OccuCollect_Presentation_Presentation%20Sept%2025%202020%20rev%204.pdf. 

 

9.     Julie Burkett 12:14 PM 

Just this week, I had an ALJ at a hearing tell me he did not have to accept rebuttal evidence because he gets to decide when the record is complete and closed.  I told him I could have the rebuttal evidence to him that same day.  He then told me he would not accept rebuttal vocational evidence from me unless I was a qualified vocational expert witness.  I notice the case has moved to decision writing and my brief (with rebuttal evidence) has not been marked as an exhibit.  I suspect he is not going to consider my rebuttal evidence or arguments.  This is a Missouri case.  Advice?

Administrative notice carries with it the right to respond.  Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 469 (1983).  Claimant submits rebuttal evidence and requests that you resolve the conflict in the evidence based on substantial evidence, not based on the proposition that testimony trumps administrative notice.  20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(d); Social Security Ruling 00-4p.

A claimant can submit evidence to the Appeals Council.  20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b).  The rules for submission of evidence to the ALJ before the hearing do not apply to rebuttal evidence.  81 Fed. Reg. 90987, 90991 (Dec. 16, 2016).

 

10. Jari Martin 12:45 PM

Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) “A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”

Drop the mic. 

 

11. Ivan Katz 12:17 PM 

The correct cite is 20 CFR Sec. 404.1566(d).  It is NOT 20 CFR 404.1666(d).

Correct. 

 

12.  Anonymous Attendee 12:43 PM 

can you run an onet search that we can follow, starting with DOT to onet

Run an Everything Report from www.occucollect.com.  

 

13.  Danielle Beaver 12:47 PM 

Does the ALJ have the patience for you to sit there and look through the ONET while you cross examine the VE?

Once you become familiar with the process, it is seamless.  I call up the DOT codes in an Everything Report from www.occucollect.com before the ALJ finishes (mouse wheel click on reports to create a new window)

 

14.  Gerardine Delambo 12:13 PM 

where do I find the ONet?

Access the O*NET at: https://www.onetonline.org/. 

Access the O*NET Resource Center at: https://www.onetcenter.org/. 

And of course on www.occucollect.com. 

 

15.  MEGHAN GALLO 12:46 PM

Here is an example: https://www.onetonline.org/link/custom/43-9061.00  you can enter a different SOC number in place of 43-9061.00 to get to the others.  On the page, check the boxes and run the report.  A lot of what is being mentioned comes under "work context".  After you run the report,  make sure you check the "+" sign to get all of them

Very helpful!

 

16.  Gerardine Delambo 12:50 PM

Thank you, Meghan

 

17.  Violeta Arciniega 12:26 PM 

It makes sense to challenge VEs on their experience/training vs that of the DoL/BLS but I’m concerned that if I raise that at the hearing, the ALJ will point out that we’d already stipulated to their qualifications to testify — how should we address that if it happens?

See Brace v. Saul, 970 F.3d 818, 822 (7th Cir. 2020) and Goode v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 966 F.3d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir. 2020).  Agreeing that the VW is qualified is different than agreeing that everything the person says is reliable. 

Your honor, I did not stipulate to the VW testimony. I stipulated that the VW met the agency’s standards for testifying.  It would be irresponsible of me to stipulate to the accuracy of testimony that I have not heard.  For instance, if you call a medical expert and find the ME qualified, the regulations and agency policy are clear that you are not bound by that testimony.  Nor is my client bound by the VW testimony. 

 

18.  Alise Kellman 12:27 PM 

If I try to say I have no objection to the VW testifying, some ALJs will ask if I object to their qualifications and if I say yes they go ballistic

So my question, is what should be my respond to the ALJ?

See above.  In a civil trial, it is fair game to stipulate to the qualifications of the expert to shortcut the oppositions recitation of the expert’s CV.  Qualified vs. reliable v. persuasive.  Those are three different questions.  The first two are questions of law.  The last is for the judge. 

Your honor, if you want me to voir dire every medical and vocational expert, then we need to set out two hours for every witness.  If agreeing or failing to object to qualifications provides the agency with the inference that the claimant has stipulated to reliability and persuasive value of testimony that is yet unheard, then you are right.  I withdraw my failure to object and insert an objection now.  The witness does not have a reliable methodology for extrapolating local experience to the national economy.  The witness is neither a statistician or an economist. 

 

19.  Charles Kreimendahl 12:29 PM 

What about the details of the ONet, which seems to rank abilities, skills, etc by importance. But are those actually percentages that can be correlated with the Freq/Occ categories?

Never confuse qualitative assessment with quantitative assessments.  I use the work context reports and the education, training, and experience reports.  I have not used the O*NET for skills analysis nor do I think that the ORS will give sufficient detail to provide a TSA.  The work fields and the MPSMS codes are the keys to a TSA. 

 

20.  anne wagner 12:31 PM 

How about bakery worker/candy spreader or hand packer for light work occasional contact?

Bakery worker is a production worker all other occupation.  There are circa 238K production worker jobs in the nation.  Manufacturing employs 93K production workers.  All of food manufacturing employs 12K production workers.  Bakeries employ 1,500 production workers – in the nation.  Hypyerlink from the OccuCollect report for the OOH to https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix?queryParams=51-9199&ioType=o. 

Candy spreader is a helper occupation.  Who are they helping?  Helpers have 188K jobs in manufacturing.  Food manufacturing employs 51K helpers.  Sugar and confectionary product manufacturing employs 2,000 helpers. 

https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix?queryParams=51-9198&ioType=o. 

Helpers have occasional contact with others in 17% of jobs.  O*NET.  Helpers lift 25 pounds at the 25th percentile and 15 pounds at the 10th percentile.  Helpers engage in unskilled work in just under 70% of jobs.  Helpers engage in medium work in just under 50% of jobs.

I would use the OOH and OES data to rebut testimony that these occupations represent a significant number of jobs.   

 

21.  Jenna Lopes 12:35 PM 

Where on O*NET are you findingthis info. I can't find it.

Access the O*NET at: https://www.onetonline.org/. 

Access the O*NET Resource Center at: https://www.onetcenter.org/. 

And of course on www.occucollect.com. 

 

22.  Philip Gauer 12:37 PM 

Here's what the regulation says:

Philip Gauer 12:38 PM 

Sorry, I meant to paste this:  (d) Administrative notice of job data. When we determine that unskilled, sedentary, light, and medium jobs exist in the national economy (in significant numbers either in the region where you live or in several regions of the country), we will take administrative notice of reliable job information available from various governmental and other publications. For example, we will take notice of—

(1) Dictionary of Occupational Titles, published by the Department of Labor;

(2) County Business Patterns, published by the Bureau of the Census;

(3) Census Reports, also published by the Bureau of the Census;

(4) Occupational Analyses, prepared for the Social Security Administration by various State employment agencies; and

(5) Occupational Outlook Handbook, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For example … the DOT.  Social Security Ruling 00-4p does not represent a reasonable interpretation of an unambiguous regulation by nominating the DOT/SCO as the sole source of data.  Kisor v. Wilkie, 130 S.Ct. 2400, 2415-18 (2019). 

 

23.  MEGHAN GALLO 12:39 PM 

What can I do about the ALJ's that now try to anticipate my cross and adjust their hypos to make them extremely vague so they are not addressed directly in the onet such as: can interact with others on a "routine but superficial basis" or can perform work that is "learned by experience and performed by rote" ?

You can object on vagueness or simply ask the VW, “What does routine but superficial mean to you in your capacity here?”  Another question, “Does learned by experience allow for more than 30 days of experience?”  One more, “Does performed by rote mean the work never changes?”

 

24.  Philip Gauer 12:39 PM 

Sorry, still trying to ask my question!  Is the ONET one of these five things?  I'm guessing it is not.  Thanks

The general language of the regulation is “we will take administrative notice of reliable job information available from various governmental and other publications. For example, we will take notice of— [the list of five].”  20 CFR 404.1566(d). 

Use your tools of statutory and regulatory construction … if it is just the DOT then four examples are null.  If it is just the five examples, then the word examples is wrong.  Those are examples of reliable published job information.  The question is whether the O*NET, ORS, and OES are reliable governmental data published according to OMB standards?  The regulation says that it is all relevant and subject to administrative notice. 

 

25.  Lisa McNair Palmer 12:42 PM 

VE testifies bakery conveyor line worker does not have a pace of production.  Response?

First, bakery worker conveyor line doesn’t exist in significant numbers.  The bakery industry employs too few production workers, even if it does exist.  See the employment projections or the OES occupation-industry index or use Job Browser Pro using the same methodology. 

Labor (O*NET) puts bakery worker in three SOC codes.  51-9161 Computer numerically controlled tool operators has no production workers in food much less bakery.  51-9162 Computer numerically controlled tool programmers has 200 production workers and all of them are in fruit and vegetable preserving.  That leaves 51-9199 production workers, all other:  12,300 in food manufacturing generally and 1,500 in bakeries. 

Most production workers work at a fast pace, most have some ability to pause work, most require frequent gross manipulation, most require medium exertion, most require standing eight hours, and less than 30% are unskilled.  Tell the VE to square the number cited with the data.  It is a math problem not a matter of discretion. 

 

26.  Manuel Franco 12:44 PM 

What is the ruling that says you have to be able ot get the job and KEEP the job? Thanks

27.  From Manuel Franco to All Panelists:  12:43 PM

What is the ruling that says you have to be able ot get the job and KEEP the job? Thanks

SSR 96-8p. 

RFC is the individual's maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis, and the RFC assessment must include a discussion of the individual's abilities on that basis. A "regular and continuing basis" means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.

 

28.  Arthur Stevens 12:46 PM 

When we get back to live hearings, using Ipad for ONET online is great to have. Need to have an ipad that can reach the towers or a satellite hub. laptop is screen for exhibits. People really do need to use both. Just a comment.

Once the VE starts and you finish with your additional hypos, the numbers game does not require the exhibits to be open.  JMHO, YMMV. 

 

29.  Jacqueline Justice 12:50 PM

a second screen/device and hot spot is a good idea- Certain buildings have crappy service though :-)

Use a hotspot or your phone. 

 

30.  Rachel Hepburn Masters 12:54 PM 

In my area, the VEs are pretty good--they will give me the answer I want when I ask questions and respond appropriately to the ALJ questions (for the most part...there's always one or two bad answers every so often).  The main issue I run into is the RFC that the ALJs present to the VE. Is there a way to use the ONET to rebut what the ALJ is saying?

You may like the VE testimony, but I doubt it is accurate or reconcilable with the published data.  Drop a comment below and give an example of an occupation and a job number in response to a hypo. 

As to using the O*NET, some limitations cross over well.  Some take some thinking.  Contact with others, teamwork, pace, part vs. full-time, and others have direct application to many hypothetical questions. 

 

31. Arthur Stevens 12:54 PM 

The VE's often get handling and fingering stuff wrong. ONET would be great for that. Also, I diminish hand function when there is significant cervical ROM loss due to multilevel fusion. so If a person can only look down 1/3 of the day to where hands do their stuff (widget assembly etc..) then ONET can he used to dump those jobs that have a higher use of hands. I woud assume that one can use the ONET to diminish hand function jobs that make it difficult to look at hands either due to vision or cervical ROM diminishment.

The ORS is probably more helpful as it has better data for working at or below shoulder level. 

Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000830

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of production workers, all other; reaching at or below the shoulder is required

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: production workers, all other

Estimate: reaching at or below the shoulder is required

Year	Period	Estimate
2020	Annual	96.3

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000830

 

Labor does not publish detailed data for occupations ending in “9.”  Looking at 51-9161, the O*NET says:

Exertional	%	Response
Spend Time Using Your Hands to Handle, Control, or Feel Objects, Tools, or Controls — How much does this job require using your hands to handle, control, or feel objects, tools or controls?	79	Continually or almost continually
	18	More than half the time
	2	About half the time
	0	Less than half the time
	0	Never

 

It depends on the occupation. 

 

32.  anne wagner 12:56 PM 

Can you repeat the two questions to VE for beginners?

Is your testimony consistent with other department of labor data – the OOH, the OES, the O*NET, and the ORS?

What is your methodology for estimating job numbers?

If you don’t get a mathematical expression of SOC numbers to DOT numbers that includes consideration of industry and the medical factors, it isn’t reliable.  See Goode and Brace. 

 

33.  Alise Kellman 12:56 PM 

Please repeat your summary query to the VE, i couldn't write that fast

I think 29 covers it. 

 

34.  MEGHAN GALLO 12:57 PM 

The occucollect he mentioned is AMAZING and has everything he is talking about at your fingertips.  It was a game-changer for me.

Glad that you find it useful!

 

35.  Lynne Brown 12:57 PM

Where can we find that?

www.occucollect.com. 

36.  Jacqueline Justice 12:58 PM

Yes, curious where this is found.

www.occucollect.com. 

 

37.  MEGHAN GALLO 12:59 PM

Sorry, put that the wrong place. occucollect.com.  it is $300/yr and worth every penny

Thanks again for the endorsement.  Occucollect is my effort to organize my own thinking.  www.occucollect.com is the result of that effort. 

 

38. Lynne Brown 01:00 PM

Thank you!

39.  Asha Sharma 01:00 PM 

Thanks, Larry! Excellent as always....

 

40. anne wagner 12:16 PM 

Please give the cite to  USSC case that said ok to take administrative notice.

20 CFR 404.1566(d).  It is the regulation construing the statute and entitled to Chevron deference. 

 

41.  Susan Hogg 12:18 PM 

Please provide cite for the two cases I & 2 dealing w/use of O*Net evidence (or other DOL, et al) as rebuttal evidence re: jobs

You will find adverse rulings all over the fourth circuit and in California where I practice.  Those districts think that SSR 00-4p is law.  It is not.  It gets deference to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the regulation.  It is inconsistent.  The favorable cases in the CD CA are unpublished and the CD CA does not permit many of its decisions to get into West or other services. 

 

42.  William Wombacher 12:18 PM 

What about the VE that testifies their numbers come from the skilltran software program and testify that is recognized as a legit source by experts in the field. Why do we need the VE --pull out the program

SkillTran (JBP) performs a rough occupational density calculation by assigning DOT codes first to an occupational group and second to one or more industries.  That occupation industry intersection, JBP uses equal distribution to calculate job numbers for the DOT code. 

Take production workers.  52 sedentary unskilled DOT codes, 405 light unskilled DOT codes, and 185 medium DOT codes.  238,600 jobs.  Less than 30% are unskilled.  Almost 70% of the total jobs are medium.  Equal distribution even at the occupation-industry intersection is not reliable. 

 

43.  David Barish 12:25 PM 

I am  not sure  if  I  am missing something. I  am looking at cashier on O-Net and do not see where the the funcitional requirement such  as light, medium etc is  listed. Is this  listed?

The biggest reason that SSA did not transition to the O*NET in the late 90s or in the past 20+ years is that the O*NET does not describe exertion other than standing/walking. 

The O*NET says that 65% of cashiers never sit and 4% sit continually or almost continually.  The O*NET states that 49% of cashiers work part-time.  Part-time does not count at step 5.

The ORS is where you want to analyze cashiers.  Cashiers do not have a choice of sitting or standing in 97.2% of jobs.  Cashiers stand 95% of the day at the 10^th percentile.  When a worker has the option of sitting or standing, the ORS classifies the required posture as sitting.  Cashiers lift/carry 25 lbs. max at the median and 15 lbs. max at the 25^th percentile. 

Use the ORS. 

 

44.  Jacqueline Justice 12:29 PM

I don't think it is. :-)

Right.  See above. 

 

45.  John Leiter 12:29 PM 

Can you give examples of using the o*net in cross examination?

The ALJ asked you to assume occasional contact with coworkers, supervisors, and the public.  You identified marker.  Do you agree that the occupation belongs to stockers and order fillers, SOC 53-7065?

I have 43-5081 for Stock Clerks and Order Fillers. 

Is that consistent with the 2010 SOC or the 2018 SOC?\

I don’t know. 

I make an offer of proof that the O*NET version 25.0 classified marking clerks SOC 43-5081.02 as having occasional contact with others in 1% of jobs and no contact with others in 0% of jobs.  Do you have a statistical basis for rebutting the Department of Labor data?

I don’t use the O*NET. 

I didn’t ask if you did. I asked if you have a reliable basis for rebutting published data from the Department of Labor.  Do you?

I have 35 years of experience in the field.

I understand that.  What is your methodology for extrapolating your 35 years of experience to the national economy? 

I look at the BLS and OES data and I have experience. 

Do you have a method for estimating job numbers that considers any BLS data on job numbers and job requirements other than the DOT data set?

No.

 

46.  Jennifer Haskins 12:39 PM 

Has anyone asked a vocational expert about the ability of obtaining the "possible" job under the current economy?

That question is legally irrelevant.  Holding a job is proper.  Getting a job is irrelevant. 

 

47.  Celeste Scalise-Qubrosi 12:40 PM 

Where istht pace requirment I was looking at Onet on Cleaner housekeeper?

Environmental	%	Response
Pace Determined by Speed of Equipment — How important is it to this job that the pace is determined by the speed of equipment or machinery? (This does not refer to keeping busy at all times on this job.)	5	Extremely important
	8	Very important
	18	Important
	1	Fairly important
	68	Not important at all

 

And the ORS:

Series ID: ORUC1000020Y00001167

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of maids and housekeeping cleaners; workload is self-paced

Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements

Occupation: maids and housekeeping cleaners

Estimate: workload is self-paced

Year	Period	Estimate
2020	Annual	4.8

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000020Y00001167

 

Series ID: ORUC1000020Y00001171

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of maids and housekeeping cleaners; with consistent, generally fast work pace

Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements

Occupation: maids and housekeeping cleaners

Estimate: with consistent, generally fast work pace

Year	Period	Estimate
2020	Annual	39.8

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000020Y00001171

 

Series ID: ORUC1000020Y00001172

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of maids and housekeeping cleaners; with consistent, generally slow work pace

Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements

Occupation: maids and housekeeping cleaners

Estimate: with consistent, generally slow work pace

Year	Period	Estimate
2020	Annual	17.8

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000020Y00001172

 

Series ID: ORUC1000020Y00001173

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of maids and housekeeping cleaners; with varying work pace

Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements

Occupation: maids and housekeeping cleaners

Estimate: with varying work pace

Year	Period	Estimate
2020	Annual	42.4

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000020Y00001173

 

Series ID: ORUC1000020Y00001176

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of maids and housekeeping cleaners; with the ability to pause work

Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements

Occupation: maids and housekeeping cleaners

Estimate: with the ability to pause work

Year	Period	Estimate
2020	Annual	79.8

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000020Y00001176

 

 

48.  Arthur Stevens 12:43 PM 

OIDAP...isn't that from 2008?

OIDAP is 2011 for the Claims Review Study. 

https://www.ssa.gov/oidap/Documents/PRESENTATION--TRAPANI%20AND%20HARKIN--OIDAP%2005-04-11.pdf.

 

Arthur Stevens 12:43 PM 

good point about serial employment. Gatliff? like the employee who keeps punching the supervisors in the nose and then doing that same thing over and over and gets fired over and over.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6270371128768030698&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

 

49.  carter 12:46 PM  

How can you prove an inability to play well with others is not volitional?

50.  Phyllis Rubenstein 12:51 PM

Based on mental health diagnosis and records

With a diagnosis of a personality disorder; with clinical findings of irritability, isolation, withdrawal, etc.  We prove mental limitations out of the objective medical record.  A finding of occasional contact with others is a frequent inability to interact with others.  Play well with others is a colloquial expression that I do not use in hearings. 

 

51.  Alise Kellman 12:51 PM 

Please repeat again where you found the numbers for the entire optical employment (optical manufacturing)

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ANN%20Business%20Patterns%20County%20Business%20Patterns&tid=CBP2018.CB1800CBP&hidePreview=true

Click on codes.  Select all 6-digit NAICS.  Download the .csv file.  Filter for ophthalmic good, NAICS 39115. 

The answer for 2018 is 25,070 jobs in the industry in all occupations. 

 

52.  MEGHAN GALLO 12:59 PM

occucollect.com.  it is $300/yr and worth every penny

 

53.  From Barbara Silverstone to All Panelists:  11:55 AM

Hi! Sorry about that, was setting up the slide

 

54.  From Phyllis Rubenstein to All Panelists:  12:07 PM

Would you repeat the citation to the regulation?

20 CFR 404.1566(d), 416.966(d). 

 

55.  From Barbara Silverstone to Everyone:  12:08 PM

http://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/

Thank you.

 

56.  From Ivan Katz to Everyone:  12:10 PM

It is 20 CFR 404.1566(d) - NOT 1666

57.  From Priscilla Medina to All Panelists:  12:10 PM

Thank you

 

58.  From jere fletcher to All Panelists:  12:12 PM

Heckler v Campbell , USSCt. 461 U.S. 458 (1983)

 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/458/

 

59.  From Yolanda Arias to All Panelists:  12:12 PM

What advantage is there using ONET over DOT?

Here is what DOL says:

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.

The DOT was loaded onto the OALJ website because it was a standard reference in several types of cases adjudicated by the OALJ, especially immigration related matters. Time has passed, DOL’s regulations have changed, and OALJ now rarely adjudicates cases that reference the DOT.

So, why is the DOT still on the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) website? It is because the DOT is still used in Social Security disability adjudications and the OALJ copy of the DOT is often cited as an authoritative source of the DOT.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is developing a new Occupational Information System (OIS), which will replace the DOT as the primary source of occupational information for use in the SSA disability adjudication process. SSA intends to have the OIS operational and to make necessary regulatory and policy updates by 2020.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/topics/libraries/LIBDOT

 

60.  From Barbara Silverstone to Everyone:  12:15 PM

Hi! As George said at the outset of this webinar, questions will be answered on Larry’s blog after this webinar and we will share the link out. Please ask all questions in the Q&A tab.

 

61.  From Randall Head to All Panelists:  12:15 PM

As someone who grew up raising tobacco, I can say there are ZERO full-time jobs tying tobacco hands - and there never have been any.

It is a seasonal job involved with tobacco harvest, and it is part of the job of stripping.

NOBODY has EVER employed anyone to do nothing but tie hands of tobacco.

My family lives near the NC border with VA and they concur. 

 

62.  From Phyllis Rubenstein to All Panelists:  12:16 PM

Would you spell Chiebe

63. From Jocelyne Martinez to All Panelists:  12:17 PM

Spell Schehhi 1 case. What is the cite

Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (2017).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5244434700220563056&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

 

64.  From Jocelyne Martinez to All Panelists:  12:28 PM

What is the name of the text that states that certain jobs (labeler; addresser, etc.) are no longer existing?

65.  From Jeffrey Senter to All Panelists:  12:28 PM

What is the best source to cite for that these jobs are obsolete?

66.  From Arthur Stevens to All Panelists:  12:39 PM

what was that source attain that addresses obsolete jobs. OIDAP? thanks. My recollection is that the report was from 2008. is there an update?

OIDAP Claims Review Study. 

https://www.ssa.gov/oidap/Documents/PRESENTATION--TRAPANI%20AND%20HARKIN--OIDAP%2005-04-11.pdf.

google OIDAP obsolete jobs to find the link manually or to my blog. 

 

67.  From Barbara Silverstone to All Panelists:  12:31 PM

I think I just made it possible for Larry to share screen

Next time!

 

68.  From Randall Head to All Panelists:  12:40 PM

One VW here in SoCal keeps giving Marker jobs - Placing price tags on items for retail sales.

Marker is part of stockers and order fillers SOC 43-7065. 

Stockers and order fillers lift/carry 25 lbs at the 10^th percentile and stand/walk 75% of the day at the 10^th percentile.  Those workers are unskilled in about 86% of jobs. 

Unless SSA agrees that light work has a maximum lift/carry of 25 lbs., there are no light jobs left.  They require medium exertion. 

Extra at no extra charge:  Labor now defines light work as 25 lbs. maximum. 

 

69.  From Jennifer Haskins to All Panelists:  01:00 PM

Thank you so much!!!

70.  From laura bagwell to All Panelists:  01:00 PM

THANK YOU for this great presentation.

71.  From Ada_Lenia Mena to Everyone:  01:00 PM

Thank you for all the information. Very informative.

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Questions and Answers from the January 15, 2021, NOSSCR Interview, California Social Security Attorney (January 18, 2021) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/01/questions-and-answers-from-january-15.html