Tuesday, August 9, 2022

White v. Kijakazi -- We Are Winning the War

 Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit published an opinion in White v. Kijakazi. To understand White, we use our Rocky and Bullwinkle Way Back Machine and examine White v. Saul, the District Court decision.  The Way Back Machine is Google Scholar in this instance.  Here is what Judge Claire held:

Plaintiff asks the court to make its own assessment of job availability based on her counsel's personal research, when the relevant question is whether the ALJ properly relied on the VE's testimony. The undersigned finds that the ALJ did properly rely on the VE's testimony, and indeed the ALJ made specific findings of reliability. AR 29. Ninth Circuit precedent clearly supports the ALJ's authority to make a credibility finding regarding the VE's testimony, and to rely on that testimony with respect to job availably. Plaintiff has not demonstrated error, and her motion for summary judgment must be denied.

The Judges and Magistrate Judges should stop labelling our client as Plaintiff.  This is a defect in decision-writing that has infected most district courts.  The Court of Appeals uses the human being's name.  If we truly respect people for who they are, then we should use that person's name (first or last) or initials.  But I digress.  

The District Court focused on the evidence before the ALJ.  Was the ALJ reasonable in relying on the Jeanine Metildi's testimony that there were 72,000 “Table worker,” 65,000 “Assembler,” and 32,000 “Film touch up inspector” jobs in the national economy that White could perform.  We know that counsel for White submitted the relevant screen shots from Job Browser Pro to the Appeals Council.  The question at the ALJ level is whether the ALJ should have relied on Metildi's testimony.  The answer is "no."  

The Social Security Administration makes available as part of its library to adjudicators the most up-to-date version of Job Browser Pro.  From a dead stop, JBP not running, it took me 1:35 to open the program, type in the job name (not number), find the occupation on the list (sort by exertion, these are sedentary), select that occupation, select employment numbers, and click on DOT estimate.  That minute and a half is for all three occupations.  But the person must care enough about truth to make the minimal effort to look.  I know that the ALJ has no sua sponte duty to look, but no one seriously believes that there are 72,000 “Table worker,” 65,000 “Assembler,” and 32,000 “Film touch up inspector” jobs in the national economy.  No one, not even Jeanine Metildi.  

Table worker functions in the fabrication, nec industry according to the DOT.  The crosswalks tell us that table worker is an inspector, tester, sorter, sampler, and weigher occupations (SOC 51-9061).  Film touch-up inspector functions in the electronic component industry and is in the same occupational group.  There are 782 DOT codes representing circa 558,000 jobs.  Someone will have to justify how any rational person could testify that a fifth of the inspector jobs are contained in these two sedentary unskilled occupations.  Assembler works in the button and notion industry.  The entire miscellaneous manufacturing industry represents 254,659 jobs and a quarter of them are not this sedentary unskilled occupation.  No one seriously believes Jeanine Metildi's testimony that has an inkling of familiarity with the labor data and cares about the reliability of a system that adjudicates a lifeline to people that received the promise of help in the event of disability.  


___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, White v. Kijakazi -- We Are Winning the War -- An Illustration, California Social Security Attorney (August 9, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers for since 2009. 







Monday, August 8, 2022

Touch-Up Screener, Printed Circuit Board Assembly -- An Illustration

Touch-up screener, printed circuit board assembly is a fairly common sedentary unskilled occupation identified by vocational witnesses.  Touch-up screener requires frequent reaching, handling, and fingering; constant near acuity; and average clerical perception, finger dexterity, and manual dexterity.  Within those parameters, the DOT supports the existence of that occupation.  The question is how many.  Here are the last 10 cases in Google Scholar identifying touch-up screener and the numbers of job, if stated:

Amador v. Kijakazi

48,000

Black v. Kijakazi

8,000 to 10,000

Cindy LS v. COSS

9,000

Williams v. Kijakazi

3,000

Mitchell v. COSS

unstated

Davis v. COSS

32,700

Christopher H. v. Kijakazi 

unstated

Sherri S. v. Kijakazi

unstated

Kyle S. v. COSS

unstated

Fields v. COSS

17,000


The first thing we notice is that the range runs from 3,000 to 48,000 jobs.  There is no consistency.  One, some, most, or all the VW are pulling the answers out of a hat.  

For job numbers, we start with Job Browser Pro.  JBP estimates 1,074 touch-up screener jobs in the nation.  The best estimate from a VW is almost three times the JBP estimate.  Returning to the DOT, we examine the industry designation, electronic components.  The DOT defines that industry:
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES INDUSTRY: This designation includes occupations concerned with manufacturing, assembling, and repairing electronic components. Electronic components are parts of electronic equipment that affect the current characteristics within its circuit. Included as electronic components are resistors, capacitors, coils, chokes, inductors, printed circuit boards, semiconductors, tubes, transistors, diodes, television antennas, headphones, piezoelectric crystals and crystal devices, computer logic modules filters, flipflops, gates, inverters, voltage dividers, delay lines, and wave guides. Occupations concerned with the manufacture of electrical machinery, equipment, and appliances or wire telephone or telegraph equipment are included in the ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY (elec. equip.) and occupations concerned with the manufacture of radio and tv receiving and broadcasting equipment and accessories are included in the RADIO, TELEVISION, AND COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY (comm. equip.). Occupations concerned with manufacturing blank and prerecorded magnetic tapes and phonograph records are included in the RECORDING INDUSTRY (recording).

Having established the integral part of the DOT presentation, we look to the industries used by JBP:

333300

Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

334100

Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing

334300

Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing

334400

Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing

334500

Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing

335200

Household Appliance Manufacturing

335300

Electrical Equipment Manufacturing

336400

Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing


Without diving too deep into the weeds, those industry selections sound in a plausible range.  Within those industries, JBP estimates a total of 53,402 jobs spread out between 20 and 79 DOT codes at each occupation-industry intersection.  JBP arrives at 1,074 jobs for touch-up screener.  

Comparing JBP's occupation (inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers (SOC 51-9061)) to those same industry groups, the OEWS estimates 62,930 jobs and the EP estimates 62,400 jobs.  That is a 15% unexplained departure from JPB to BLS data.  It is not in our favor so we let it go.  

This is where we cross-examine the VW:

    1. Do you agree that touch-up screeners belong to the occupational group of inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers (SOC 51-9061)?
    2. Do you agree that inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers contains 782 different DOT codes at various exertion and skill levels?
    3. Do you agree that inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers represents between 551,000 (OEWS) and 558,000 (OOH/EP) jobs considering all 782 DOT codes?
    4. Did you consider the DOT designation of electronic components and accessories in estimating job numbers?
    5. What industries reported in County Business Patterns did you classify as employing touch-up screeners?
    6. State the NAICS codes for those industries?
    7. How many other testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers DOT codes co-exist the touch-up screeners in those industries that you just listed?
    8. What percentage of jobs at those occupation-industry intersections are unskilled?
    9. What percentage of jobs at those occupation-industry intersections are sedentary?
    10.  What percentage of jobs at those occupation-industry intersections are both sedentary and unskilled?

These 10 questions illustrate the granular nature of the question:

    What is your reliable well-accepted methodology for estimating job numbers?

Inside baseball statistics:  
    
    1. The ORS reports that 10.4% of testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers engage in sedentary exertion.  
    2. The ORS reports that 15.0% of testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers engage in unskilled work.

A VW would have to assume that all 10.4% of sedentary jobs are unskilled and that all of them work as touch-up screeners with no other occupations at the occupation-industry intersections to estimate anything close to 50,000 jobs for touch-up screeners.  More likely that 10% of the jobs at those occupation-industry intersections are sedentary and 15% of those are unskilled.  That is true if exertion and skill have no correlation.  To answer the question posed, most or all the VW are pulling the answers out of a hat.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Touch-Up Screener, Printed Circuit Board Assembly -- An Illustration, California Social Security Attorney (August 8, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers for since 2009. 






  


Thursday, August 4, 2022

What We Know About Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi -- Reading the Tea Leaves

 Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi is precedent in the Ninth Circuit.  It is important for what it says and what it does not say.  This is not a dissection of the case but instead a dissection of the vocational witness.  

We start with Sarahrose K. v. Saul.  The hearing took place in July 2018.  From the District Court decision, we learn:

The VE noted he did not do a "typical labor market survey" but instead

I use a software program that will allow me to manipulate the data such that I can exclude certain industries and . . . isolate to the best degree that I can the DOT numbers, and then it also allows me to isolate just the full-time jobs based on another set of data. And then I am able to estimate, sort out, just the DOT numbers for that one job out of the OES numbers that I have.

There is one software program that estimated job numbers, allowed manipulation of industries, and allowed inclusion or exclusion of part-time jobs -- Job Browser Pro.  And that is the problem.  SkillTRAN released Job Browser Pro version 1.6 in 2015.  That version allowed manipulation of industries and inclusion or exclusion of part-time jobs.   The last version of 1.6 was active in July 2018.  

The VW identified usher and children's attendant totaling 114,000 jobs.  The 2017 dataset for the Occupational Employment Statistics was the version available to May -- July 2018.  At that time, OES estimated 124,710 jobs in the Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers occupational group (SOC/OES 39-3031).  The OES released in May 2018 estimated 133,970 jobs.  

JBP currently reports 16% of Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers working full-time.  And there's the rub.  How many Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers including usher and children's attendant did the VW think worked full-time.  Even if it was half, the VW overshot the number of ushers and children's attendants by double the possible amount.  The only way to make the numbers work is to count sector 71; subsectors 711, 712, and 713; in industry groups 7111, 7112, 7113, 7114, 7115, 7121, 7131, 7132, and 7139.  Only then could someone force JBP 1.6.x to report 64,000 full-time ushers and 50,000 children's attendants.  The VW cheated the program and used it dishonestly.  

The same is true of sandwich-board carrier.  The 2018 OES reports 81,250 jobs in the group.  JB P reports 24% work full-time.  The VW double counted industries or added industries that don't belong.  The VW used JBP dishonestly.  Kilpatrick did not know it, flailing with even worse data and failing to ask the right questions. 

    1. What version of JBP are you using?

    2. What is the aggregate size of the OES group according to JBP?

    3. What percentage of workers in that occupational group work full-time according to JBP?

    4. What (NAICS codes) industries does JBP assign to this DOT code?

    5. What (NAICS codes) industries did you add?

    6. Have you avoided double counting NAICS industries, groups, subsectors, and sectors?

    7. Do you know what that means?

    8. And finally, submit the JBP reports for the then-current addition to show the number of jobs actually reported.

The system let the VW get away with it.  The economy did not change significantly from 2012 to 2018.  The data was stale as reported by the Ninth Circuit but stale as in day-old bread, still edible and still nourishing.  The stale evidence should have informed the record but Kilpatrick did not explain why  it was still probative or identify the source of the non-DOT estimate data from the 2012 JBP.  Lesson, keep the up-to-date version of JBP and use it.  Otherwise, we let the VW prevaricate and the courts will look the other way.  


___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Stacy S. v. Kijakazi and the Occupational Requirements Survey, California Social Security Attorney (August 4, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers for since 2009. 






  

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Stacy S. v. Kijakazi and the Occupational Requirements Survey

 Stacy S. v. Kijakazi addresses vocational expert testimony given in 2021 after a 2019 application for benefits.  The dates are important in this case.  The case stands for two propositions important to me: (1) the vocational witness did not have a reasonable explanation of a reliable methodology; and (2) the vocational witness used the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) to estimate job numbers at least in part.  The Court's summary of the vocational witness testimony is the typical smoke and mirrors that the VW give -- they really don't have a methodology.  Justice Gorsuch was right, they do pull it out of a hat.  

Stacy S. interests me because of its discussion of the ORS. The Court summarizes:

The VE averred that his testimony regarding the ability to perform Claimant's past work was based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"); testimony regarding occasional handling and fingering and overhead reaching was based on the Occupational Requirements Survey ("ORS"); testimony regarding "the attendant work" was based on the Selected Characteristics of Occupations ("SCO"); and testimony regarding pushing, pulling, reaching, foot controls, absenteeism, and time off-task was based on "42 plus years of vocational counseling practice and placement experience of hundreds of people with disabilities." Id. at 60-61.

 The VW explained:

Well, I'm talking about—I think the ORS is based on SOC categories, which are general classifications of jobs. And within the [SOC] category, they're characterizing the number of jobs that are unskilled, semi-skilled, and so forth, and also breaking them down according to how often they are sedentary, light, and other physical—other requirements. And with an [SOC] code, all I'm doing is providing a representative DOT number of—a DOT number that falls within that SOC code.

 The Court held:

To the extent it appears the VE relied on the ORS for the estimated numbers, Claimant correctly argues that the ORS data shows "a percentage of total jobs within broad categories," but does not readily show how many jobs altogether are available within a given job category. [Dkt. 9 at 16.] Moreover, the currently available ORS data is only a preliminary estimate based on two years of a planned five-year sample period. As Claimant underscores, "any job numbers obtained from this source would necessarily be incomplete and unreliable." [Dkt. 9 at 17.]

Now we can take off our gloves.  The ORS does not answer DOT questions.  The ORS does answer whether any DOT code within the group has the characteristics that the VW wants to impute.  For instance, a VW says that a production job stands four hours per day and represents 50,000 jobs.  The ORS establishes that of the circa 200,000 production worker jobs, those workers are on their feet at least 75% of the day at the 10th percentile.  It is not possible for less than 10% of 200,000 to mathematically come up with 50,000 jobs.  The ORS can also establish that the incidence of sedentary work is negligible.  The ORS can establish that most of the jobs require medium exertion and most require skills.  To use the ORS to rebut the description that general office worker (Router, 222.587-038) or receptionist (Information Clerk, 237.367-018) do not require frequent manipulation when the SCO describes them that way is a misuse of the data.  Attendant (Children's Attendant, 349.677-018) is a part-time job in the same category as usher.  

The VW was also using stale data.  As of February 2021 when this hearing occurred, BLS had published the final first wave of the 2018 dataset, the 2019 dataset, and the 2020 dataset.  The 2018 dataset represented the culmination of the 2016-17-18 datasets.  The data that we now have in 2022 represents six sets of data representing responses from human resources (employers) about the requirements of work.  "Two years of a planned five-year sample" screams that the VW had not kept up with the data.  

The current data is in the 2021 dataset.  OccuCollect publishes the final first wave representing the 2018 dataset.  BLS publishes both but the presentation of the 2018 dataset is in an XLSX file that requires another file to understand the cells.  

A knife in the hands of a criminal is a deadly weapon.  A knife in the hands of a skilled surgeon saves lives.  It is apparent that data in the hands of vocational witnesses is akin to the former and not the latter.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Stacy S. v. Kijakazi and the Occupational Requirements Survey, California Social Security Attorney (August 3, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers for since 2009. 












Monday, August 1, 2022

Preparing Meals as a Reason for Rejecting Symptom and Limitation Testimony

 I traveled back in the cases to find Fair v. Bowen, an old, reported instance of using the preparation of meals as a basis for rejecting symptom and limitation testimony.  More recently, Ahearn v. Saul cited preparing meals as an activity inconsistent with claims of disability. The regulations are clear:

We will consider all of your statements about your symptoms, such as pain, and any description your medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect your activities of daily living and your ability to work.

The problem is ambiguity.  Without context, I do not know what preparing meals requires.  Getting a bowl and spoon, a box of cereal, a half-empty half-gallon of milk, and sitting down to consume that food did involve preparing a meal.  A person would never be on their feet for more than a few minutes, never lift over two pounds, and it does not take a hungry person very long to consume that bowl of cereal.  Yet, that is preparing and consuming a meal.  

Contrast that with Beef Wellington.  According to the Food Network, this dish requires seven hours to prepare.    Not only does it take all day long to prepare, but it is also a complicated dish to prepare with the pastry crust, the duxelles, the green pepper corn sauce, and then the side dishes.  Someone testifies to making Beef Wellington two or three times a month, that is inconsistent with a claim of inability to engage in the long standing and walking required of light work.  If 37 years of representing people, I have never heard or read testimony that someone prepared this culinary delight.  Too complicated, too much time, and too expensive for a person that has not worked in a year to five years.  

How about poached eggs, what does the Food Network say about that? This recipe carries the classification of easy to make.  The prep time is 10 minutes and the cook time is five minutes.  One inch of water in a two-quart pot, that is not even close to 10 pounds.  Making poached eggs is not inconsistent with either the inability to sit or stand for prolonged periods.  

A lunch consisting of a Cuban Sandwich is another item that I would not expect from my clients.  Food Network classifies this tasty lunch entree as easy to make.  The sandwich takes 25 minutes to prepare and cook.  Making Cuban Sandwich is not inconsistent with either the inability to sit or stand for prolonged periods.  

And what are we having for dinner?  Chicken Broccoli Casserole!  Food Network says it is easy to make and has active time of 35 minutes during almost three hours of total time.  Most of that time is waiting for the chicken to cook or the casserole to bake.  The three-quart baking dish weighs 3.1 pounds.  If this person were meal-prepping for a week (the recipe is 10 servings), that effort would not require more than occasional standing/walking with 40 minutes of rest time during the three hours of prep and cook time, TWICE.  Making Chicken Broccoli Casserole is not inconsistent with either the inability to sit or stand for prolonged periods.  

Next time your client says in testimony or in the function reports that he/she prepares meals, ask that per what he/she prepares.  Ask that person how long it takes, how much time on the feet is required to make that basic item of sustenance.  Don't allow the record to give an inference that your client ever makes Beef Wellington but more likely to have toast and coffee.  

Looking at recipes has piqued my appetite.  I find cooking to give me a catharsis.  It is creative, delicious, and a complete diversion from the practice of law.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Preparing Meals as a Reason for Rejecting Symptom and Limitation Testimony, California Social Security Attorney (August 1, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author is AV rated for 23 years and listed in Super Lawyers for 14 years. 


 


Monday, July 25, 2022

What We Discern from the Case Disposition Data in the 2020 SSA Waterfall Chart

 As part of the budget request to Congress every year, SSA presents its justification for that request.  In that justification is the "waterfall" chart.  The 2020 data for the 2022 budget request looks like this:


Treating all the data as from one application pool (which is wrong but nonetheless useful), the chart tells us that SSA granted 1,042,170 claims initially, on reconsideration, by an ALJ, by the Appeals Council, or by order of the federal courts.  While the initial level grants 39% of the claims made, 767,424 allowances represent 74% of the favorable determinations or decisions made on the chart.  Reconsideration accounts for 7% of favorable dispositions, ALJs account for 15% of those favorable dispositions.  The AC and the federal court combined amount to 0.15% of the awards of benefits (not counting remands).  When the claimants' bar complains about the low allowance rate of the state agencies handling initial claims, the bar must concede that initial claims account for the overwhelming majority of allowed claims on this chart and historically.  The 2020 data is not that different from prior years.  

The data allows consideration of attrition as a phenomenon.  Of the 1.5 million claims filed, 660,000 do not seek reconsideration after the initial determination that the person does not meet the definition of disability.  Another 61,000 do not request a hearing after the reconsideration denial.  Claimants denied benefits by an ALJ do not seek AC review in 22,000 cases.  The second-place finisher for attrition is the 87,000 claimants that receive a denial of review by the AC and fail to seek review by the federal courts.  

Since the Conn-Daugherty debacle of 2010, the bar knows that allowance rates at the ALJ level dropped precipitously.  Along with that free fall of allowance rates, the AC grant of review dropped from a historical 25% to 30% to the 12% reported on this chart.  Despite the halving of the review rate by the AC rate, the claimants' representatives have not sought review in more cases in federal court.  The rate of federal court filings has slid from the historical 14% to just over 13%.  That might not represent a statistically relevant change in the federal filing rate.  But when compared to the drop in the AC review rate, the relatively stable filing rate screams that the government has tightened the screws and the bar flinched.  The bar has not responded with more federal court filings of meritorious claims.  

There are explanations for this observation.  ALJ decisions are better organized than they were 15 to 30 years ago.  The Findings Integrated Template eliminated most of the decisions that failed to address subjective symptom and limitation testimony.  The evolution from the free style consideration of medical opinion evidence to the weight standard and to the persuasive value standard has made decisions vaguer about why the ALJ made findings and more cumbersome to challenge.  The courts' embrace and expansion of the harmless error standard in the past 20 years has made the court litigation more difficult.  The ingestion of the poison pill that vocational witnesses have some unstated statistical expertise has placed further obstacles in the court review process.  The claimants' bar can and should do more and do better at the hearings and pursue more claims in federal court.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, What We Discern from the Case Disposition Data in the 2020 SSA Waterfall Chart, California Social Security Attorney (July 25, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author is AV rated for 23 years and listed in Super Lawyers for 14 years. 



 


Friday, July 22, 2022

Speaking of Temporary Help Services - Define the Terms

A vocational witness identifies occupations and claims Job Browser Pro as the source and foundation for job numbers.  I check JBP on the fly and the numbers check out as the DOT job estimate.  The list of industries includes Temporary Help Services.  That is the line of questioning that I will pursue.  

Question: Do you agree most of jobs in the occupation you identified are in the Temporary Help Services industry as listed in Job Browser Pro?

Answer: Yes.  

Question: Is working for Temporary Help Services sustained employment?

Answer: Yes.  These are temp to hire jobs.

Question: What percentage of temporary jobs are temp to hire as opposed to temp to borrow for a short time?

Answer: Oh, I don't know the answer to that question.  

That's the scenario.  I call it fudge, and not the kind that you can eat.  It is sloppy, inexact, unreliable, and it turns out to be wrong.  We go to the definition of Temporary Help Services in the 2022 NAICS Manual (OMB 2022).  

561320 Temporary Help Services 

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

Illustrative Examples:

Help supply services                              Temporary employment or temporary staffing
Model supply services                           Manpower pools
Labor (except farm) contractors 
(i.e., personnel suppliers)

Cross-References.                  Establishments primarily engaged in-- 

• Providing human resources and human resource management services to client businesses and households-- are classified in Industry 561330, Professional Employer Organizations;
• Supplying farm labor--are classified in U.S. Industry 115115, Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders;
• Providing operating staff to perform a combination of services to support operations within a client's facilities--are classified in Industry 561210, Facilities Support Services;
• Providing executive search, recruitment, and placement services--are classified in U.S. Industry 561312, Executive Search Services;
• Listing employment vacancies and in recruiting, referring, or placing applicants for employment--are classified in U.S. Industry 561311, Employment Placement Agencies; and
• Representing models, entertainers, athletes, and other public figures as their agent or manager--are classified in Industry 711410, Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures.
Now that we know how the executive branch defines the industry for use in County Business Patterns, the Occupational Wage and Employment Statistics (the cornerstone of JBP), the Employment Projections (the foundation for the Occupational Outlook Handbook), and others, I continue:
Question: What part of the definition of industry suggests that some, most, or all the jobs in this industry are temp-to-hire?

Answer: That's based on my experience.  

Question: The Commissioner takes administrative notice of County Business Patterns.  The NAICS defines the industries used by CBP.  Is that your understanding?

Answer: I don't know.

Question: Do you use County Business Patterns for any purpose either here or in your professional services outside of Social Security?

Answer: No.

Question: Do you have the vocational handbook published by SSA?

Answer: Not with me.  It is in my office.
This is where we submit pages 8-9 of the VE Handbook:

While not a definitive list of job requirements, an ideal VE will have: 
• Up-to-date knowledge of, and experience with, industrial and occupational trends and local labor market conditions. 
• An understanding of how we determine whether a claimant is disabled, especially at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process we describe beginning on page 14. 
• Involvement in or knowledge of vocational counseling and the job placement of adult, handicapped workers into jobs. 
• Knowledge of, and experience using, vocational reference sources of which the agency has taken administrative notice under 20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d), including: 
• The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and the Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles (SCO);
• County Business Patterns and Census reports published by the Bureau of Census; 
• The Occupational Outlook Handbook published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and
• Any occupational analyses prepared for SSA by various state employment agencies.

The vocational witness is unprepared to discuss CBP as required by regulation and the VE Handbook.  

Move to strike the witness's testimony.   It will be denied.  ALJs don't know beans about CBP and think that it does not give national job numbers.  That is just uninformed.  The counties make up the state and the states make up the nation.  If we have all the county job numbers, county-by-county, then we have the national job numbers.  CBP reports all that and more.  

There is no reason to assume that any discernible number of temporary help services jobs represent temp-to-hire in significant numbers.  Move to strike reliance on that testimony relying on jobs identified in Temporary Help Services.  It is not defined as temp-to-hire and speculative how many are temp-to-hire.  The vocational expert will cling to experience, and I will ask:

What is the reliable methodology that you use to extrapolate your local experience to the national economy?

And finally:

Who do you believe has the greater ability to collect and synthesize data; you or the Census Bureau? 

This last question has a variable. Here we are speaking to the NAICS Manual and the Census Bureau's CBP.  If our attention were directed at the ORS, OEWS, OOH, or EP, we ask about the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  If our attention were focused on the O*NET, we ask about the Employment Training Administration (the same agency that published the DOT).  Don't let the vocational witness steal from your client or steal your fee from you.  Focus on the first and make good decisions.

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Speaking of Temporary Help Services, California Social Security Attorney (July 22, 2022) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author is AV rated for 23 years and listed in Super Lawyers for 14 years.