Commonly Cited DOT Codes by SOC

 Here is a list of the top 59 DOT codes cited by vocational experts in Social Security hearings.  This list links to the 2010 SOC.  

DOT Title	DOT Code	2010 SOC
CHARGE-ACCOUNT CLERK	205.367-014	43-4111
Interviewers, Except Eligibility and Loan
PHOTOCOPYING-MACHINE OPERATOR	207.685-014	43-9071
Office Machine Operators, Except Computer
COLLATOR OPERATOR	208.685-010	43-9199
Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other
ORDER CLERK, FOOD AND BEVERAGE	209.567-014	43-4151
Order Clerks
ADDRESSER	209.587-010	43-9022
Word Processors and Typists
MARKER	209.587-034	43-5081
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers
MAIL CLERK	209.687-026	43-9051
Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except Postal Service
CASHIER II	211.462-010	41-2011
TICKET SELLER	211.467-030	41-2011
Cashiers
ROUTER	222.587-038	43-9061
Office Clerks, General
GARMENT SORTER	222.687-014	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
ROUTING CLERK	222.687-022	43-5071
Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic Clerks
CALL-OUT OPERATOR	237.367-014	43-4041
Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks
INFORMATION CLERK	237.367-018	43-4171
TELEPHONE QUOTATION CLERK	237.367-046	43-4171
Receptionists and Information Clerks
OFFICE HELPER	239.567-010	43-5021
TUBE OPERATOR	239.687-014	43-5021
Couriers and Messengers
COUNTER CLERK	249.366-010	41-2021
Counter and Rental Clerks
CUTTER-AND-PASTER, PRESS CLIPPINGS	249.587-014	43-9061
DOCUMENT PREPARER, MICROFILMING	249.587-018	43-9061
Office Clerks, General
FURNITURE-RENTAL CONSULTANT	295.357-018	41-2021
Counter and Rental Clerks
FAST-FOODS WORKER	311.472-010	35-3021
Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food
CAFETERIA ATTENDANT	311.677-010	35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers
KITCHEN HELPER	318.687-010	35-9021
Dishwashers
CLEANER, HOUSEKEEPING	323.687-014	37-2012
Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
TICKET TAKER	344.667-010	39-3031
USHER	344.677-014	39-3031
Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers
HOST/HOSTESS, HEAD	349.667-014	39-9099
Personal Care and Service Workers, All Other
FOLDER	369.687-018	51-9198
Helpers--Production Workers
MARKER	369.687-026	51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers
FLAGGER	372.667-022	33-9091
Crossing Guards and Flaggers
SURVEILLANCE-SYSTEM MONITOR †	379.367-010	33-9031
Gaming Surveillance Officers and Gaming Investigators
SURVEILLANCE-SYSTEM MONITOR	379.367-010	33-9099
Protective Service Workers, All Other
CLEANER, INDUSTRIAL	381.687-018	37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
CLEANER, LABORATORY EQUIPMENT	381.687-022	37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
BAKERY WORKER, CONVEYOR LINE *	524.687-022	51-3099
Food Processing Workers, All Other
BAKERY WORKER, CONVEYOR LINE	524.687-022	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
CAN-FILLING-AND-CLOSING-MACHINE TENDER	529.685-282	51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and Tenders
BASKET FILLER	529.687-010	51-9198
Helpers--Production Workers
AMPOULE SEALER	559.687-014	53-7064
Packers and Packagers, Hand
EGG PROCESSOR	559.687-034	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
INSPECTOR AND HAND PACKAGER	559.687-074	51-9061
SORTER I	569.687-022	51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers
FOLDER	686.685-030	51-9199
ASSEMBLER, SMALL PRODUCTS I	706.684-022	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
POLISHER, EYEGLASS FRAMES	713.684-038	51-4033
Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and Buffing Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders
FINAL ASSEMBLER	713.687-018	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
LENS-BLOCK GAUGER	716.687-030	51-9061
TOUCH-UP SCREENER	726.684-110	51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers
MAGNETIC-TAPE WINDER	726.685-010	51-9199
ELECTRONICS WORKER	726.687-010	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
ASSEMBLER, ELECTRICAL ACCESSORIES I	729.687-010	51-2022
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Assemblers
ASSEMBLER, SMALL PRODUCTS II	739.687-030	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
TABLE WORKER	739.687-182	51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers
MARKER	781.687-042	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
TABLE WORKER	783.687-030	51-9198
Helpers--Production Workers
TABLE WORKER	788.687-142	51-9199
Production Workers, All Other ‡
FINAL ASSEMBLER	789.687-046	51-9198
FOLDER	789.687-058	51-9198
Helpers--Production Workers
PACKAGER, HAND	920.587-018	53-7064
Packers and Packagers, Hand
LABORER, STORES	922.687-058	51-9198
Helpers--Production Workers

* JBP places bakery worker conveyor line in food processing workers, all other. Labor does not.

† Labor placed surveillance systems monitor in two SOC codes, 33-9031 and 33-9099. The 2018 SOC now uses 33-9098 replacing 33-9099.

‡ The 2018 SOC puts all 1,590 (including one duplicate) in 51-9161 (computer numerically controlled tool operators), 51-9062 (computer numerically controlled tool programmers), and 51-9199 (production workers, all other). Use other codes according to expert analysis.        

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Commonly Cited DOT Codes by SOC, California Social Security Attorney (November 10, 2021)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com    

Why We Should Not Ask Leading Questions

 Lawyers take evidence.  It is a required class and every state tests evidence as part of the bar exam.  FRE 611(c) sets out the general lay of the leading question problem:

(c) Leading Questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony. Ordinarily, the court should allow leading questions:

(1) on cross-examination; and

(2) when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.

In general, we should avoid asking our clients leading questions except as necessary to develop the witness's testimony but not allow that exception to swallow the rule.  In addition to allowing the client to tell his/her own story instead of having the attorney tell the story and ask for affirmation as a more powerful presentation, we discuss a problem with leading questions that is fraught with danger.  

The medical evidence shows vision problems for the claimant.  The medical expert testifies to difficulty with small objects.  The Selected Characteristics rates near acuity (clarity of vision at 20 inches or less) as a requirement of work.  The ALJ seeks to lock down and out certain aspects of near acuity and asks the claimant:

So you have problems with small print?

The claimant affirms that leading question. The representative cross-examines the vocational expert about near vision (should have used the vocational term of near acuity). The ALJ interrupts, "where did you get that from?"  Aside from acting as an interruption, the claimant is allowed to explore the underpinnings of the witness's testimony.  In this case, the medical expert testified to difficulty with small objects.  The occupations identified all require at least occasional near acuity per the SCO.  In this case, the representative had a clear and reasonable factual basis for the question.  

The ALJ denies the case.  The ALJ writes that the claimant did not identify small objects, just small print, as a potential problem with work.  That's a problem with leading questions.  

 The ALJ asked about small print.  Small print is a subset of small objects.  If a person has difficulty in seeing small objects as a class and the ALJ asks if that person has difficulty with small print, the only truthful answer is "yes."  But it is clear in the nature of how people communicate that affirming an example does not exclude the broader class of the subject.  

Let's imagine a witness says that a crowd gathered.  On cross-examination, the defense attorney asks if the witness saw women. The witness affirms that statement.  The testimony on cross-examination does not exclude men because no one asked that question.  The closing argument that the male defendant was not there as shown by the statement that there were women is frivolous. The ALJ in our case asking about small print and then concluding that the claimant excluded threading a needle fails to present a logical and rational basis for decision-making.  

If the representative asked that leading question about small print, that creates a different problem.  The claimant has the burden of proof and the case in chief is now suggesting small print as the scope of limitation without taking into account the medical opinion evidence.  The diligent examination goes something like this:

 Q.  Can you describe for the ALJ your ability to see clearly at 20 inches or less, near acuity?

A. I don't see things close up very well.  I really struggle to read. 

Q.  Do you have any other examples of difficulty seeing things close up?

A.  I can't see small objects ...

By allowing the client to list reading and then clarifying that this is an example, we avoid the box that the ALJ put around this case.  Suggesting answers implies lists, not examples.  My personal favorite method of asking yes/no questions seeks a "no" so that the claimant can disabuse me of the wrong idea.  

Q.  Do you seek small objects clearly?

A.  No.  

Q.  Can you describe examples of that for the ALJ?

A.  [let the claimant give some examples].  

We don't need to ask leading questions except in very limited circumstances.  Leading questions dampen the persuasive value of the claimant's testimony.  Leading questions on direct or re-direct (since the ALJ asked questions first) has dangers of turning examples into lists.  Reject the Nike slogan on leading questions.  Don't do it.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Why We Should Not Ask Leading Questions, California Social Security Attorney (October 30, 2021)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

Sedentary, Simple Repetitive Tasks Equals No Significant Work

 The title of this piece sets forth the foundation and conclusion.  It does not matter whether the person is 21 years with a Ph.D. in astrophysics from MIT awarded at the age of 18.  Sedentary with simple repetitive tasks equals no significant number of jobs.

Here is the hypothetical from a real case:

Q And the first hypothetical I'd like you to consider is where the individual could perform a full range of sedentary work as it's defined in regulations. And can understand, remember and carry out simple routine tasks for up to two-hour periods of time; with only occasional interaction with the general public. There should be no fast-paced production or assembly line type work, and only minimal changes in workplace setting or routine. Given these limitations would this individual be able to perform any of the work that the claimant has performed in the past?

A No, Your Honor.

Q Would there be other work that such an individual could perform, and if so can you provide me with three examples?

A Yes. Surveillance system monitor, sedentary, SVP 2, the DOT is 379.367-010, approximately 150,000 full-time jobs in the national economy which I would erode by 50 percent down to 75,000 jobs based upon the DOT designating it, that precludes the government positions. Sedentary SVP 2, the job is assembler, the DOT is 734.687-018, approximately 125,000 full-time jobs in the national economy. And sedentary SVP 2, the job is table worker, the DOT is 739.687-182, approximately 40,000 full-time jobs in the national economy.

Q All right. Let me give you a second hypothetical, and this is adding on to the first. If the individual required at least one unscheduled break of 15 to 20 minutes in addition to regular breaks and lunch in an eight-hour workday, due to chronic pain, side effects with medication and/or possibly psychological symptoms, would that preclude those jobs that you identified in response to hypothetical number one?

A Yes.

Q Would there be any other work at that level?

A No. That would, that would call for an accommodation.

Q Is your testimony consistent with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles?

A It is.

There are so many things wrong with this vocational testimony that a representative might feel overwhelmed by the force of experience and administrative momentum.  Clearly the second hypothetical question is the opioid slipped to the claimant to make him/her think that he/she was finally heard and will win the case.  We know that the feel good will disappear when the hearing decision comes.  Advocate it all you want, but we know better.  The anecdotal experience that one time the ALJ went that way is just that, anecdotal lightning in a bottle.  

It is incumbent on the responsible representative to go after the vocational expert.  We discussed this before, "what is your methodology for determining the number of jobs as a surveillance systems monitor, assembler, and table worker?"  Lock that down.  If the vocational expert gives the opaque black box testimony, leave it there and move on.  This is not a time to argue, it is a time to allow the witness to hang him/herself.  

Regardless of the methodology the vocational expert regurgitates, present conflicting evidence. 

1. Job Browser Pro

a. Job Browser Pro assigns SSM to two occupational groups.  JBP currently states that that OEWS/SOC group of school bus monitors and protective service workers, all other (33-9098) represents in the aggregate 144,310 jobs.  Gaming surveillance officers and gambling investigations  (33-9031) represents 8,340 jobs.  Those two occupational groups together represent about 10,000 jobs attributed to SSM. 

b. JBP assigns assembler to production workers, all other (51-9199) representing 194,360 jobs in 1,528 occupations. Assembler identified by the vocational expert represents an estimated 17 jobs in the nation.  

c. JBP assigns table worker to inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers (51-9061)representing 549,200 jobs in 782 occupations.  Table worker identified by the vocational expert represents an estimated 962 jobs.  

The ALJ must resolve the conflict in the evidence with a logical and rational basis.  Administrative notice is the preferred method of estimating job numbers.  20 CFR 404.1566(d).  Testimony answers questions that notice cannot answer.  20 CFR 404.1566(e).  Create the conflict and submit the JBP reports for the OEWS Group and the DOT Employment Estimate.  JBP considers industry and the vocational expert did not.  

2. Occupational Data

a. SSM is a reasoning level 3 occupation and therefore has an apparent conflict with simple repetitive work.  The OOH states that gambling officers and investigators are semi-skilled and skilled.  The O*NET OnLine states that gambling officers and investigators do not deal with the public as an important or fairly important job function in 34% of jobs.  The O*NET resource center states that gambling officers and investigators have on-the-job training not exceeding one month in 16.8% of jobs.  Gambling officers and investigators sit 90% of the day or more in all jobs according to the ORS.  Neither the ORS nor the O*NET provide data for school bus monitors and protective service workers, all other.  

b. Assembler is a reasoning level 1 occupation.  It is simple with little changes.  Assembler does require constant use of the hands for reaching, handling, and fingering.  That creates a conflict with no fast paced work.  The OOH states that production workers are semi-skilled and skilled representing 203,600 jobs.  The ORS states that production workers engage in unskilled work in 28.7% of jobs.  Production workers stand 90% of the day or more at every reported percentile.  Production workers engage in medium work in 68.9% of jobs.  

c. Table worker is a reasoning level 1 occupation.  It is simple with little changes. Table worker requires working on a conveyor belt.  That creates a conflict with no assembly line type of work.  The OOH states that inspectors are semi-skilled and skilled representing 557,900 jobs.  The O*NET OnLine states that inspectors do not deal with the public as an important or fairly important job function in 18% of jobs.  The ORS states that inspectors engage in unskilled work in 21.3% of jobs.  Inspectors engage in light work in 53.6% of jobs and medium work in 28.1% of jobs.  Inspectors sit 75% (six hours) at the 75th percentile and 90% of the day at the 90th percentile.  Assuming 20% of the jobs are sedentary  and 20% of those jobs are unskilled (a combined 4%) results in fewer than 40,000 jobs claimed by the vocational expert.  The industries that would employ table workers (plastic and rubber products manufacturing) employ 30,200 inspectors.  Applying the 4% for sedentary and unskilled to that job number results in 1,200 jobs.  That's more than what JBP estimated but reasonably close.  

Competent representation presents either JBP or occupational data to the ALJ post-hearing.  Good representation presents both.  Be good.

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Sedentary, Simple Repetitive Tasks Equals No Work, California Social Security Attorney (October 16, 2021)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/10/sedentary-simple-repetitive-tasks.html