Valerie Williams, VE, Relies on Job Browser Pro 2017

Valerie Williams testifies as a vocational expert in Las Vegas and the nine southern California Social Security hearing offices -- that I know of.

Here are some facts that I have gleaned:

1. Williams does not own a license for Job Browser Pro -- she shares a copy with another expert.
2. The copy of Job Browser Pro is version 2017.
3.  Williams does not check current job numbers.

Really, a vocational expert that is pinching pennies does not have her own copy of JBP.  It is $549 for the initial license and significantly less for annual renewals.  While we are on this rant, attorneys must have access to a current version of JBP.  If an attorney does not have access to a copy of JBP, then the attorney cannot submit rebuttal evidence to vocational expert testimony.

SkillTran launched version 1.7 in the fall of 2019.  Use of any version prior to that date is irresponsible and unreliable.  Version 1.6.3 is not reliable when the publisher declares openly that the methodology and ability of users to add and subtract industries constituted a flaw.  The version out in 2017 is at least one release behind in terms of ver. 1.6 and completely misses the 1.7 improvements.  That does not mean that JBP is correct or reliable in every instance but it is always useful evidence.

And here it is, Williams testifies to 85,000 jobs as an usher (DOT 344.677-014) and 40,800 jobs as a barker (DOT 342.657-010).  The ALJ confirmed that these are full-time job numbers.  Cross-examination confirmed that JBP version 2017 (no such designation) is the data source for the job numbers.

But that is not what JBP says, not even close.  JBP estimates the number of full-time ushers at 4,460 in the nation and the number of full-time barkers at 3,144 in the nation.  Williams played fast and loose with the job numbers and misrepresented what she did not have to look at.  That is negligent at best, more likely reckless, if not plainly false testimony.

A check of the OES job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates that ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers represent 133,970 jobs in the nation.  The OOH job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates job numbers for ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers at 136,400 jobs.  The OES and OOH reports are free non-subscription reports available by registering your email address.

The O*NET OnLine states that 90% of ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers work less than full-time.  The O*NET is part of the subscription package on OccuCollect.com.  JBP estimates the number of part-time workers at 86%.  JBP uses the definition of full-time at 35 hours per week.  the O*NET uses 40 hours per week.  It is impossible for the occupational group of  ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers to represent 85,000 jobs in the nation.

A check of the OES job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates that amusement and recreation attendants represent 318,900 jobs in the nation.  The OOH job numbers of OccuCollect.com estimates job numbers for amusement and recreation attendants at 338,600 jobs.

The O*NET OnLine states that 59% of amusement and recreation attendants work less than full-time.  The O*NET is part of the subscription package on OccuCollect.com.  JBP estimates the number of part-time workers at 71%. The Everything Report from OccuCollect.com uses the Occupation Requirements Survey to describe amusement and recreation attendants as unskilled in 80% of jobs; lifting/carrying 20.56 pounds at the mean; standing/walking 80% of the day at the 25th percentile and 66.7% of the day at the 10th percentile; and no minimum education requirement in 72.6% of jobs.  Most of the jobs are part-time and don't count; most of the jobs require medium exertion; and some reduction is warranted for skill and education.

Usher and barker are targets because of the SCO description of occasional handling.  The ORS states that amusement and recreation attendants require gross manipulation with both hands in 82.3% of jobs and require fine manipulation in 97.5% of jobs.  Limitations to light work with six hours of standing/walking and occasional use of one or both hands will not leave a significant number of jobs.

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Valerie Williams, VE, Relies on Job Browser Pro 2017, California Social Security Attorney (February 26, 2020),
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/02/valerie-williams-ve-relies-on-job.html

The Death of SSR 00-4p

This is the brief in Anthony D. v. Saul raising the colorable claim that SSR 00-4p is not entitled to deference:

A.   The Death of Social Security Ruling 00-40p

The substantial evidence question involves two discrete components: (1) is there a discernible path from the vocational expert’s local knowledge that uses a reliable method to extrapolate to national data; and (2) is the vocational expert testimony feeble or contradicted. Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1140, 1155-56 (2019). There is no discernible path from the vocational expert’s testimony from local data to national statistics because no one asked.

Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019) retools the deference doctrine found in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997). To recap the Auer deference doctrine, the courts typically defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation so long as the interpretation was not either plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the statute or regulation. Social Security Rulings are frequent recipients of deference. Quang Han Van v. Bowen, 882 F.2d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir. 1989); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 687, 872 (9th Cir. 2017). The rulings bind all components of the agency. 20 C.F.R. § 402.35(b). Under Kisor, that automatic deference is now up for reconsideration. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003). [D.] examines deference owed to Social Security Ruling 00-4p in its description of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and its companion Selected Characteristics of Occupations is the primary reference for information about the requirements of work in the national economy. [D.] starts with the text of the administrative notice regulation:

(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.

The Commissioner takes administrative notice of reliable job information from various governmental and other publications. Social Security Ruling 00-4p makes two statements about the DOT that warrant examination:

In making disability determinations, we rely primarily on the DOT (including its companion publication, the SCO) for information about the requirements of work in the national economy. We use these publications at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process.

And:

The DOT lists maximum requirements of occupations as generally performed, not the range of requirements of a particular job as it is performed in specific settings.

The regulation does not impose or even suggest a hierarchy, that the DOT is more important than other reliable job information or more important that County Business Patterns, Census Reports, Occupational Analysis, or the Occupational Outlook Handbook. Nor do the Appendix 2 Medical-Vocational Guidelines impose or suggest a hierarchy:

The existence of jobs in the national economy is reflected in the “Decisions” shown in the rules; i.e., in promulgating the rules, administrative notice has been taken of the numbers of unskilled jobs that exist throughout the national economy at the various functional levels (sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy) as supported by the “Dictionary of Occupational Titles” and the “Occupational Outlook Handbook,” published by the Department of Labor; the “County Business Patterns” and “Census Surveys” published by the Bureau of the Census; and occupational surveys of light and sedentary jobs prepared for the Social Security Administration by various State employment agencies.

The first Kisor question returns to the Chevron watershed: is the regulation ambiguous? 139 U.S. at 2415. If the regulation is not ambiguous, then the ruling gets no deference. It might be entitled to respect to the extent that it is persuasive under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), but it does not get deference. There is nothing ambiguous about “we will take administrative notice of reliable job information” and here are five examples. Nor is there anything ambiguous about, “administrative notice has been taken” from the DOT, OOH, CBP, Census Surveys, and occupational analyses. Because the regulations are not ambiguous, the ruling gets no deference.

The second Kisor question is whether the interpretation of the ambiguous regulation is reasonable – is it within the zone of ambiguity? 139 U.S. at 2415-16. Assuming that either the administrative notice regulation or the description of the bases for the “grids” were ambiguous, any identifiable ambiguity is not hierarchical in nature or about the tendency of the DOT to identify the maximum requirements of work generally performed. Because the presence of a hierarchy and because the reporting characteristics of the DOT are not within the zone of ambiguity, the ruling gets no deference. The Commissioner cannot create a new regulation by interpreting a clear one to say something that the regulation does not suggest. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000).

If the regulations are ambiguous and the interpretation of the regulation falls within the zone of ambiguity, the court must find that the ruling is the authoritative position of the Commissioner. That is the third Kisor question. 139 U.S. at 2416. There is no doubt that Social Security Ruling 00-4p represents the Commissioner’s binding agency policy.

The fourth Kisor question asks whether the ruling falls within the substantive expertise of the Commissioner as opposed to interpreting a matter within the expertise of another agency. Whether the DOT is a reliable source of current information about the national labor market is not within the Commissioner of Social Security’s expertise. That expertise belongs to the Secretary of Labor. Labor publishes the DOT because some agencies continue to use it, e.g. the Social Security Administration. But here is what Labor says about the subject:

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.

Dept. of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Dictionary of Occupational Titles –  Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, electronic version at https://www.oalj.dol.‌gov/‌‌LIBDOT.HTM.  The O*NET is an ongoing process of data collection and refinement.  See 84 Fed.Reg. 24822 (May 29, 2019). 

We are concerned about reliable job information in the adjudication of over 2 million disability claims annually according to Biestek. The DOT lists about 10,409 occupations with a date last updated in 1977, another 2,581 jobs scattered between 1978 and 1990, and 79 codes added after the revised fourth edition was published. The O*NET is updated every year. Most of the DOT is over 40 years out-of-date. When Labor says that the source for current information is the O*NET, the Commissioner’s reliance on the DOT as primary and reliable ceases under Biestek. With respect to the question of whether the DOT reflects the maximum job requirements of occupations as they are generally performed, the Commissioner is just flat wrong. Appendix D of the DOT says:

Occupational definitions in the DOT are written to reflect the most typical characteristics of a job as it occurs in the American economy.

The final Kisor element is the “fair and considered judgment” of the agency. In 2000, the DOT was a mere eight years old; the SCO published in 1993 was seven years old. The O*NET was published but gestational. The mature data within data set version 23.3 (as of July 2018) reflects iterations and data accumulation to posit the question: just because the Commissioner was reasonable in 2000 does not make the death grip on the DOT reasonable or reliable today.

The administrative notice regulation contains no hierarchy or primacy as between different sources of administrative notice. The creation of a primary source would require a new regulation, not a grafting procedure. Whether the DOT represents reliable job information in 2019 is a question best answered by the agency that collects and assembles job data – the Department of Labor. And, Social Security Ruling 00-4p is wrong even if the Commissioner had quarter to construe the DOT as to the descriptions contained in the DOT.

Using the ruling to force ALJs to seek a basis for resolving conflict between out-of-date DOT data and anecdotal vocational expert testimony resolves the ambiguity between what to do with administrative notice and expert testimony. Beyond that observation, which applies with equal force to other enumerated sources of administrative notice, the provisions of Social Security Ruling 00-4p are not persuasive much less entitled to deference.

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, The Death of SSR 00-4p, California Social Security Attorney (February 11, 2020),
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-death-of-ssr-00-4p.html

A Word About Numerosity

That is the title of the section of the court decision in Anthony D. v. Saul, CV 19-134 MRW.  It is not available on Google Scholar or WestLaw.  Here are the important snippets from the court decision by Magistrate Judge Wilner:

13 ... Some judges [fn. 1] doubt whether the twentieth century's DOT (last revised in 1991) remains a legitimate, dependable source of employment data in contemporary America. The database continues to trumpet the availability of jobs that simply don't exist anymore.

14. It is especially eye-opening that the U.S. Department of Labor endorses a competing compilation (the O*Net) as the "primary source of occupational information" for use in industry and litigation — even as the Labor Department explains that it posts DOT information on its website solely as an accommodation to the Social Security Administration. (oalj.dol.gov/LIBDOT.HTM (accessed Jan. 9, 2020).)

15.  Plaintiff makes colorable arguments as to why SSR 00-4p should not receive Kisor-Auer deference. Counsel also may have my ear some day in asserting that vocational expert testimony based on archaic DOT job data and descriptions does not constitute "substantial evidence" adequate to support an adverse agency ruling. Biestek v. Berryhill, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). However, because the action is remanded on another ground, I get to duck the issue today.

16.  By the way, so did the Ninth Circuit in Shaibi v. Berryhill, 883 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2017). The government is literally correct in quoting the passage from Shaibi that the circuit could "find no case, regulation, or statute suggesting" that an ALJ must turn to other data sources in lieu of the DOT. (Docket # 21 at 23 (quoting Shaibi, 883 F.3d at 1109).) But the Ninth Circuit clearly did not view that issue as either ripe or preserved at the time — the main and obvious holding in the case was that Mr. Shaibi "forfeited his challenge to the VE's job numbers." Id., 883 F.3d at 1108.

17.  Are other aspects of the decision merely nonbinding dicta? Perhaps Pasadena will deal with this roiling question soon. If so, the agency may need to reconsider its defense of the dusty DOT data.  

And footnote 1 lists some cases casting doubt on blind application of the DOT:

Including me. See Analia D. v. Berryhill, No. CV 18-3869 MRW, 2019 WL 856854 at *2 (C.D. Cal) ("To that end, a growing number of courts have resisted agency findings that historic jobs — like those involving the word processing devices formerly known as typewriters — exist in substantial numbers in the 2019 economy. See, e.g., Skinner v. Berryhill, No. CV 17-3795 PLA, 2018 WL 1631275 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2018) (`addresser' jobs have 'significantly dwindled in number since 1991 in light of technological advances'); Hilda V.A. v. Berryhill, No. ED CV 18-195 KES, 2018 WL 5291930 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (discussing percentage of time that 'accounting clerk' currently spent on keyboarding tasks); Boomhower v. Berryhill, 2017 WL 7167116 (D. Or. 2017) (remanding for determination whether 'addresser' and 'nut sorter' are jobs 'still performed' as described in DOT); Herrmann v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 1110, 1113 (7th Cir. 2014) (retired Circuit Judge Posner's doubts about the validity of job information for positions like 'pin setter, phrenologist, leech collector, milkman, pony express rider, and daguerreotypist').") 

We will make progress in this endeavor if we persevere and fastidiously demand that the agency produce reliable evidence of the existence of work.

_______________________________________________________

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Lawrence Rohlfing, A Word About Numerosity, California Social Security Attorney (February 11, 2020),
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-word-about-numerosity.html