What is Your Reliable Methodology for Extrapolating Your Experience?

That is the question that we should all ask in the course of cross-examining vocational experts in Social Security disability hearing.  What is your reliable methodology for extrapolating your local experience to the national economy?  The reason that this question should be deeply ingrained into the practice of every representative that does this kind of work is simple, that is the question that the Supreme Court directs us to ask.  Biestek v. Berryhill says:

Now say that she testifies about the approximate number of various sedentary jobs an applicant for benefits could perform. She explains that she arrived at her figures by surveying a range of representative employers; amassing specific information about their labor needs and employment of people with disabilities; and extrapolating those findings to the national economy by means of a well-accepted methodology.

(Emphasis added). 

The well-accepted methodology could take the form of using Job Browser Pro because the vocational expert could say that it is accepted by the community of vocational experts as reliable.  The  First Circuit accepted that testimony in Purdy v. Berryhill.  Well-accepted should not include the equal distribution method of calculating job numbers, at least not when conflicting evidence is present.  The Seventh Circuit suggested that result in Chavez v. Berryhill.  Here is what Biestek says about the Chavez line of questioning:

Even without specific data, an applicant may probe the strength of testimony by asking an expert about (for example) her sources and methods—where she got the information at issue and how she analyzed it and derived her conclusions. See, e.g., Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962, 969-970 (CA7 2018).

Most vocational experts either use Job Browser Pro, the equal distribution method (with or without knowing it), or have no discernible methodology at all.  This results in identifying the entire SOC/OES number of jobs as applicable to a single DOT code.  That methodology is worse by equal distribution; it is just lazy and ignorant. 

Here is a working list after hearing the vocational expert identify jobs and job numbers:

1. Confirm the DOT code.
2. Obtain the SOC/OES code.
3. Obtain the number of jobs in the SOC/OES code (most will not know).
4. Obtain the number of DOT codes within the SOC/OES code (most will not know).  
5. Ask for the reliable and well-accepted methodology for extrapolating the local experience to the national economy.  

With that information, we can disassemble the vocational expert testimony post-hearing.  If we use the O*NET and the Occupational Requirements Survey during the hearing (use OccuCollect.com), we can ask after an offer of proof of what the Department of Labor says:

6.  Who as greater resources for accumulating job requirements data (or job numbers data) in the national economy, you or the Department of Labor?

We still have the industry-occupation matrix used by Job Browser Pro, the BLS employment projections, and the Occupational Employment Statistics.  If that route is necessary ask:

7. In what industries, by NAICS code and name, does this occupation work?

We must have the first five.  Number six is the concession by which we hang the witness testimony.  Number seven tightens the knot.  We must use the data from Labor for the sake of our client's benefit entitlement.