It Is the Percentage of the Day, Not the Hours of the Day that Matters

In a NOSSCR CLE and in hearings before SSA, I heard presenters, vocational witnesses, and ALJs express reliance on the hours of the day for sitting and standing (including walking) relying on the Occupational Requirements Survey. In Social Security disability hearings, reliance on hours in a day is a mistake.  

We use packers and packagers, hand (SOC 53-7064) as our example of the day. The ORS reports:

Occupational Requirements – sitting, standing (including walking)	2018	2023	2024
choice of sitting or standing is allowed	4.3	2.3	<0.5
choice of sitting or standing is not allowed	95.7	97.7	>99.5
Percent of Day standing is required (10th percentile)	90	90	100
Percent of Day standing is required (25th percentile)	100	100	100
Percent of Day standing is required (50th percentile - median)	100	100	100
Percent of Day standing is required (75th percentile)	100	100	100
Percent of Day standing is required (90th percentile)	100	100	100
Percent of Day standing is required, mean	95.5	95.9	98
hours of standing (10th percentile)	4	4	6
hours of standing (25th percentile)	5	5.88	6
hours of standing (50th percentile - median)	8	8	8
hours of standing (75th percentile)	8	8	8
hours of standing (90th percentile)	8	8	12

The amount of standing at the 10th and 25th percentiles falls within the generally used (and wrong) assumption that light and medium work require six hours of standing/walking during a workday. The question is whether those jobs are full-time work. Packers and packagers stand 90 to 100% of the workday at the 10th and 25th percentiles. How can that be? The jobs are part-time. If a job requires four to six hours of standing during the workday and that standing represents at least 90% of the workday, the person is not working and eight-hour workday. Algebraically:

                                Workday x 90% = 4 hours

Divide each side by 90%. 

                                Workday = 4 hours / 90%

                                Workday = 4.44 hours

The O*NET reports that all packers and packagers work at least a 40-hour workweek.  The ORS disagrees. In the special release dataset for "SVP 1-2 and 35-40 weekly hours - reference year 2023," the downloaded XLSX spreadsheet states that 58.2% of packers and packagers work 35-40 hours and requires a high school diploma or less; 44.4% of packers and packagers have no minimum education requirement. The ORS reports  that 18.2% of packers and packagers require a high school diploma and 70.3% have no minimum education requirement. How do we get from 88% and 70% down to 58% and 44%? Some of the jobs require more than 40 hours and some represent part-time work. 

SSR 96-8p is clear that full-time work satisfies the Commissioner's burden at step five - the existence of other work assuming the claimant's medical-vocational profile. (A "regular and continuing basis" means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.). At step four, part-time work may matter. (The ability to work 8 hours a day for 5 days a week is not always required when evaluating an individual's ability to do past relevant work at step 4 of the sequential evaluation process. Part-time work that was substantial gainful activity, performed within the past 15 years, and lasted long enough for the person to learn to do it constitutes past relevant work, and an individual who retains the RFC to perform such work must be found not disabled.). 

Do not allow vocational witnesses to use "hours" as a substitute for "percentage of the day" when assessing the requirements of work. Part-time work does not count. 

That was not always the case. Prior to 2003, the regulations provided for a step-five finding of the ability to perform other work "on a full-time or reasonably regular part-time basis." 20 CFR 404.1562, 416.962 (2002). SSA deleted that language in 2003. 68 Fed. Reg. 51153 (Aug. 26, 2003). The notice explains:

However, in SSR 96-8p, we explain that at step 5 we consider only full-time work when we consider other work you are able to do. (See 61 FR 34474, 34475 (July 2, 1996).) 

The number of hours that includes consideration of part-time work is not probative at step five. The percentage of the day is the better measure of how much time a worker will spend sitting or standing/walking during a full-time workday. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, It Is the Percentage of the Day, Not the Hours of the Day that Matters, California Social Security Attorney (July 25, 2025)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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

 

A Limitation to Simple Work -- a Medical and Educational Finding

We have heard and seen the limitation to simple work in various iterations. Simple and routine; simple and repetitive; simple instructions; simple tasks, all associated with a medically determinable severe impairment that limits the range of work available to a person. The Commissioner pushes back on this concept. Vocational Witnesses (VW) will argue that the person has a high school education. The time has come to recast that finding of medical impairment as causing a ripened educational deficit. We start with the regulation:

Formal education that you completed many years before your impairment began, or unused skills and knowledge that were a part of your formal education, may no longer be useful or meaningful in terms of your ability to work. Therefore, the numerical grade level that you completed in school may not represent your actual educational abilities. These may be higher or lower. However, if there is no other evidence to contradict it, we will use your numerical grade level to determine your educational abilities.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(a); 416.964(a) (emphasis added). 

The Commissioner states as a matter of law that the grade level completed may not represent educational abilities. We agree. A person that lacks the ability to perform the cognitive functions associated with a high school education lacks the ability to bring those educational abilities to bear in a work setting. 

The Commissioner states  that an individual with a high school education and above possesses the educational ability to perform semi-skilled through skilled work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(b)(4), 416.964(b)(4). Individuals with a marginal education have the “reasoning, arithmetic, and language skills which are needed to do simple, unskilled types of jobs.” Id. at (b)(2) (emphasis added). The ALJ bears the burden at step five to determine the claimant's education level. Silveira v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 1257, 1261–62 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding the Commissioner bears the burden at step five to establish the claimant is literate) overruled on other grounds 20 §§ 404.1564(a); 416.964 (deleting the ability to communicate in English and illiterate in English). 

Social Security Ruling 20-1p confirms regulations. An individual with at least a fourth-grade education can read and write simple messages. The Ruling reiterates “to assign an individual to an education category lower or higher than his or her highest level of formal education, there must be specific evidence supporting the finding in the determination or decision.” An ALJ finding that a claimant could not perform more than simple work means that the person lacks the ability to access and use a high school education. The historical note that the claimant has a high school education or more does not answer the question posed by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(b), 416.964(b): whether the claimant's actual educational abilities are lower than his formal education level achieved. Where the ALJ finds a limitation to simple work, the factual finding answers that question; the claimant's actual educational abilities are not commensurate with past education. The finding of a high school education therefore conflicts with the finding of a limitation to simple work because the claimant cannot access that reasoning, arithmetic, and language abilities beyond simple work. 

In Zavalin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit considered whether a limitation to simple routine tasks conflicted with the ALJ’s finding that the claimant could perform work requiring reasoning level three. Zavalin rejected the Commissioner’s argument that “the DOT’s reasoning levels correspond only to a person’s level of education and, therefore, Zavalin is presumptively capable of Level 3 Reasoning because he completed high school,” instead finding “the DOT’s reasoning levels clearly correspond to the claimant’s ability because they assess whether a person can ‘apply’ increasingly difficult principles of rational thought and ‘deal’ with increasingly complicated problems.” Id. (emphasis original) (citing DICOT, Appendix C, available at https://www.dol. gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/DOT/REFERENCES/DOTAPPC. Zavalin stands for the proposition that a claimant lacks the ability to access their formal education in the presence of a limitation to simple routine tasks. The court’s conclusion is consistent with the regulation: that “the numerical grade level that you completed in school may not represent your actual educational abilities. These may be higher or lower.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(a), 416.964(a) (emphasis added).

How does this impact the disability analysis? A person 55 years of age or older limited to medium and simple work with no past relevant is presumptively disabled. 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P, Appendix 2, Rule 203.10. A person limited to simple work with any other severe impairment and no past relevant work is presumptively disabled.  20 C.F.R. §§ 404.15642b), 416.962(b). 

This additional theory of disability takes advantage of the change of past relevant work from fifteen years to five years.  20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560, 416.960 (as amended 2024). More claimants will meet that vocational criterion of no past relevant work. This additional vocational detriment will apply to SSI claims that have remote work experience, if any, as well as DIB claims on or over the edge of the date last insured. 

We should press this point. A person limited to simple work should never be treated as having the ability to access and use a high school education. That person should be treated as having a marginal education. 

And now the bad news. The DOT broke down the educational requirements in reasoning, mathematics, and language on an ascending scale. The regulations break down the categories as illiteracy, marginal education, limited education, and high school education and above. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1564(b), 416.964(b). The Occupational Requirements Survey tracks illiteracy but does not differentiate between limited education of grades 7-12 and grades 1-6. The ORS is not agency compliant as to education. That failing may require or allow a claimant to rely on the DOT to fill in the interstitial gaps where a grade 1-6 makes a difference compared to 7-12. In assessing Specific Vocational Preparation, the various data sets have always treated high school as a zero. Jobs that require a high school education are unskilled but not simple. Under the reasoning level 3 analysis as inconsistent with simple work, an educational ability of 7-12 (without graduation) occupies a GED 3-4 level. And we must recognize that the median adult in the US reads at the 6th grade level -- capable of not more than simple work under the operative regulations. 

Education will not be a primary erosive factor on the ability to perform work in a SOC group. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, A Limitation to Simple Work -- a Medical and Educational Finding, California Social Security Attorney (May 8, 2025)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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

 

And Now for the Bad News -- Really Bad News

I had a recent hearing with vocational witness Skylar De Pedro. This is the first time I had a vocational witness testify to a straight Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) with an Occupation Requirements Survey (ORS) reduction for Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) and exertion. I doubt it will be the last. 

If we examine general office clerks (SOC 43-9061) for full-time, unskilled, sedentary work, the www.occucollect calculator reports:

43-9061 - Office Clerks, General

Job Number Calculations
# of Jobs (OEWS 2023)	% Full-Time (O*NET 29.1)	# Full-Time
2,496,370	74%	1,847,314
# of Jobs	% Unskilled (ORS 2023)	# Unskilled
1,847,314	35.7%	659,491
# of Jobs	% Sedentary (ORS 2023)	# Sedentary
659,491	81.1%	534,847

Using the BLS-endorsed methodology, and applying the O*NET part-time data with the 2023 OEWS and 2023 ORS data, the estimate is over half a million jobs. That is a significant number by any stretch. We confirm that with the ORS report:

43-9061 - Office clerks, general

Education, Training, And Experience (values are Percentages or Days)

Occupational Requirements – specific vocational preparation	2018	2023	2024
specific vocational preparation is short demonstration only	4.4	2	1.1
specific vocational preparation is beyond short demonstration through 1 month	31.3	33.7	44.6

Physical Demands (values are Percentages, Pounds, or Hours)

Occupational Requirements – strength, exertion	2018	2023	2024
strength required is sedentary	73.3	81.1	84.6

And the O*NET:

Reporting O*NET Dataset 29.2

Custom Report for: 43-9061.00 - Office Clerks, General

Structural Job Characteristics	%	Response
Duration of Typical Work Week — Number of hours typically worked in one week.	15	More than 40 hours
	59	40 hours
	26	Less than 40 hours

 We don't reasonably expect to win a full range of sedentary medical-vocational profile case. That requires that we drill down in the data. Occasional contact with others as defined in the O*NET knocks the job number from over 500,000 jobs to about 10,000 jobs:

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?	82	Constant contact with others
	14	Contact with others most of the time
	2	Contact with others about half the time
	0	Occasional contact with others
	2	No contact with others

A limitation to simple work tasks (those not requiring a high school education or equivalent) out of the ORS data sets is not as dramatic an erosion:

Occupational Requirements – education	2018	2023	2024
no minimum education requirement	15.2	18.1	10.9
no minimum education required, and literacy is not required	--	<0.5	<0.5
no minimum education required, and literacy is required	--	<25	10.9
minimum education level is a high school diploma	78.7	74.4	84.1
minimum education level is a high school vocational degree	-	<0.5	--

Further erosion of the number of jobs depends on variables in the medical-vocational profile. Postural demands are not likely in sedentary work. Manipulation (gross, fine, and keyboarding) limitations will significantly erode the occupational base. Limitations in speech, hearing, and vision will have a dramatic, if not preclusive, impact on general office clerks. 

Once the witness uses the BLS-endorsed methodology for estimating the size of the exertion-skill occupational base, using the rest of the data is wide open. Use the data sets, plural intended, as the basis for cross and rebuttal evidence. 

Never surrender. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, And Now for the Bad News -- Really Bad News, California Social Security Attorney (March 25, 2025)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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

When Looking at Job Numbers, Why Does Industry Matter?

In SSR 24-3p, the Commissioner of Social Security doubles down on the viability of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) as a reliable source for occupational information as well as the quest for vocational witnesses to do something that they are not trained to do, estimate job numbers. EM-21065 REV 2 cautions that OccuBrowse (the first tier of SkillTRAN products) allows searches by a variety of other lists, "such as industry." The EM makes a more general statement about Job Browser Pro and notes that OASYS uses the same methodology for its data estimates. 

On top of this layer, the importance of industry and how industry impacts job numbers analysis is not predictable in hearings. Some vocational witnesses will use a SkillTRAN product, others reject them, some do not consider industry at all, and some make up their own unique black box that we do not get to see. In the age of SSR 24-3p and the general description of methodology, the industry in which an occupation exists matters.

The introduction to the DOT in the parts of the occupational definition, the DOT recognizes that it lists industry in every DOT code. It is in parentheses. The Employment Training Administration states:

In compiling information for the DOT, analysts were not able to study each occupation in all industries where it occurs. The industry designation, therefore, shows in what industries the occupation was studied but does not mean that it may not be found in others. Therefore, industry designations are to be regarded as indicative of industrial location, but not necessarily restrictive.

To use the DOT description as applicable to an occupation in an industry not contemplated by the DOT is a misuse of the DOT. The DOT description applies to the industry or industries in which ETA studied that occupation. The industry designation "is an integral and inseparable part of any occupational title. An industry designation often tells one or more things about an occupation." The "any industry" designation has alternate meanings:

    1. Nearly all industries

    2. In a number of industries, but not most industries and which  are not considered to have any particular industry attachment. 

The lead statement (after the alternate titles, if any) provides other information that is useful in "any industry" occupations to narrow the field. 

Job Browser Pro and OASYS assign the DOT codes to the industries in which SkillTRAN believes that the occupation exists. Why? Because the DOT states industry specifically or suggests the industries in the lead statement or task element statements. When a vocational witness does not or cannot provide industry designations using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), that testimony is inconsistent with the DOT. 

Where else are the NAICS codes used? Glad you asked. County Business Patterns (CBP) states aggregate job numbers in specific industries, industry groups, industry subsectors, and industry sectors. CBP provides the data county-by-county, state-by-state, and nationally. CBP is number (2) on the list of sources that SSA considers reliable. 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(2). CBP uses NAICS codes and so you every vocational witness (and representative). CBP provides a real challenge to novice users. OccuCollect does the work for users. 

Are there any other governmental data sources that use NAICS codes? We are on a roll, YES. The Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) provides job numbers at the occupation-industry intersection (SOC-NAICS) to the industry group (four non-zero digits) and some specific industries (five- and six-digits). The OEWS reports industry sector (two digits) and subsector (three digits) as well. The OEWS is mentioned as an acceptable source in SSR 24-3p. The OEWS data is difficulty to navigate. OccuCollect does the work for users. 

Is there another one? Yes there is. The Employment Projections table 1.8 (EP) provides industry-occupation matrix date by occupation and table 1.9 by industry. The EP data is very similar to the OEWS data and easier to use. OccuCollect reports that data and in a crosswalk report puts that data side-by-side to the OEWS data. 

Lens inserter and final assembler are in the optical goods industry. That is a very small industry inside of the industry group medical equipment and supplies manufacturing (NAICS 339100). Small products assembler I puts together small parts. The DOT says "any" but the job duties belie the "any" as meaning "all." Small products assembler works in parts of the manufacturing sector (NAICS 31-33) and more likely that the last third of that huge listing, NAICS 33xxxx. Small products assembler II has a job description dealing with wood products. Small products assembler II does not work with metals. See Employment Projections, 51-9199. The EP are the foundation of the Occupational Outlook Handbook and every SOC code in the OOH hyperlinks to the EP. The OOH is number (5) on the list for administrative notice. 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(5).

When an occupation does have a clear industry designation or the lead statement/task elements suggest or exclude industries, a representative must hold the vocational expert to the task of identifying the industries considered. Industry matters. That is unless the vocational witness studied the occupation in every industry. 

I doubt it. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, When Looking at Job Numbers, Why Does Industry Matter?, California Social Security Attorney (March 19, 2025)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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

ORS Reports for SVP 1 or 2, 35-40 Hours per Week by Minimum Education

BLS reports "SVP level 1 or 2 and 35-40 weekly hours by Minimum Education Requirement" in an excel spreadsheet. This same report is replicated by SOC code on OccuCollect.com. Today, we look at electrical and electronic equipment assemblers (SOC 51-2022). Line 358 of the ORS report:

SOC	Occupation	Illiterate		No Min		HS or less
512022	Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers	<10	[15]	<10	[15]	26.3	10.1

The second number in each column is the standard error. If a user runs this report in OccuCollect, that person will get a null result. Why? Thanks for asking. The OOH and OEWS report combines SOC 51-2022 and 51-2023 to form electrical, electronic, and electromechanical assemblers, except coil winders, tapers, and finishers (SOC 51-2028). The OccuCollect report, sans the ORS header, reports:

51-2022 - Electrical and electronic equipment assemblers

SVP level 1 or 2 and 35-40 weekly hours by Minimum Education Requirement

The OOH Dataset does not report a Job numbers for this SOC.

Minimum Education Required	Percentage	# of Jobs
Total Jobs (OOH 2023)	100%	Not Reported
No literacy	<10%	Not Reported
No Minimum	<10%	Not Reported
High School Diploma	26.3%	Not Reported

There are job numbers in the OEWS and OOH. Running the OEWS data on the report states:

51-2028 -

SVP level 1 or 2 and 35-40 weekly hours by Minimum Education Requirement

Minimum Education Required	Percentage	# of Jobs
Total Jobs (OEWS 2023)	100%	267,440
No literacy	Not Reported	Not Reported
No Minimum	Not Reported	Not Reported
High School Diploma	Not Reported	Not Reported

Users can put those two together. There are less than 10% of jobs (< 26,744) jobs that do not require a high school education, some of those may not require literacy.  The problem gets worse. The 2018 and 2023 ORS date report on education states:

Occupational Requirements – education	2018	2023	2024
no minimum education requirement	26.7	23.1
no minimum education required, and literacy is not required	--	<10
no minimum education required, and literacy is required	--	<35
minimum education level is a high school diploma	66.8	66.7
minimum education level is a high school vocational degree	-	-	--
minimum education level is an associate's degree	-	-
minimum education level is an associate's vocational degree	-	-	--
minimum education level is a bachelor's degree	-	<0.5
minimum education level is a master's degree	-	<0.5
minimum education level is a doctorate degree	-	<0.5
minimum education level is a professional degree	-	<0.5

The ORS reports two-thirds of jobs require a high school education or equivalent (see the Collections Manual for the definition of high school education) and 23.1 to 26.7% of jobs have no minimum education requirement. Of those jobs that do not have a minimum education requirement, less than 35% require literacy and les than 10% do not require literacy. Less than 35% plus less than 10% equal 23.1%. That's stats. 

This aggregation of 90+% of jobs includes all skill levels. The ORS reports for skill level SVP1 and 2:

Occupational Requirements – specific vocational preparation	2018	2023	2024
specific vocational preparation is short demonstration only	-	<0.5
specific vocational preparation is beyond short demonstration through 1 month	29.2	29.2

The difference between 29.2% of jobs as unskilled and the report of 26.3% of jobs as requiring a high school diploma or less is answered by two syllables, part-time. There are approximately 70,300 jobs in the national economy for a person limited to unskilled work. Less than 10% of those jobs exist for a person limited to simple work, less than 7,000 jobs at all exertional levels. 

The regulations define a high school education as having the "abilities in reasoning, arithmetic, and language skills acquired through formal schooling." 20 CFR 404.1564(b)(4). A limitation to simple work is in fact a limitation on the ability to access a high school education under subsection (b), "the numerical grade level that you completed in school may not represent your actual educational abilities."

Of those less than 7,000 jobs at all exertion levels, the ORS tells us that less than 3,000 are sedentary and less than 1,500 are light jobs:

Occupational Requirements – strength, exertion	2018	2023	2024
strength required is sedentary	-	34
strength required is light work	28.3	20.8

In today's economy, the number of sedentary and light jobs for a person with a limited education or a limitation to simple work is less than 4,500. Less than is the critical phrase. Because SSA defines full-time work as a 40-hour workweek or an equivalent schedule, the reliable number is even lower. 

Proper presentation of the number of jobs as rebuttal evidence requires chasing the rabbit all the way down the hole, ignoring the Cheshire Cat, evading the Queen of Hearts, and escaping the a-statistical methodology used by witnesses with a request that the agency adhere to its promise -- administrative notice. 20 CFR f404.1566(d).

Be not afraid. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, ORS Reports for SVP 1 or 2, 35-40 Hours per Week by Minimum Education, California Social Security Attorney (March 1, 2025)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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

What's Wrong with SSR 24-3p?

 SSR 24-3p introduces a new interpretation of the stable administrative notice regulation, 20 CFR 404.1566(d). The Commissioner has long held as a matter of law to the proposition that when it comes to unskilled sedentary, light, and medium work, the Commissioner will take administrative notice of reliable governmental and other (private) published data for the requirements and numbers of jobs. SSR 00-4p responded to a growing number of cases -- and a split in the circuits -- that the ALJ must address conflicts between vocational testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(1). The Commissioner conceded to the fact that the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO) was part of the single data set. SSR 00-4p imposed on the ALJ the duty to investigate the existence of a conflict or apparent conflict and to resolve that conflict based on evidence. 

But the DOT and its dataset never stated job numbers, never. Job numbers are now and in 1978 stated in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) and County Business Patterns (CBP). 20 CFR 404.1566(d)(2), (5).Now, the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes online the Employment Projections (EP) and the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS, formerly the OES). 

Labor abandoned the DOT and its data set never updating the DOT fourth edition, revised published in 1991 or the SCO published in 1993. Labor transferred responsibility of the Employment Training Administration from the DOT to the Occupational Information Network (ONET). Recognizing the problem that 10,000 of the 13,000 DOT codes had a date last updated of 1977, the Commissioner was forced to collaborate with Labor to develop a new data set -- the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS). 

Private sources published data as well. United Stat Publishing published and publishes what is now known as the Occupational Employment Quarterly (OEQ) in various formats for national, state, and local data. That publication uses the equal distribution method of estimating job numbers -- each DOT code within a Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) represents the same number of jobs. The OEQ publishes the job numbers sorted by exertion/skill combinations. United Stat Publishing also publishes the Specific Occupational Employment - Unskilled Quarterly (SOEUQ). The SOEUQ estimates sedentary occupations by industry. The SOEUQ does not state its methodology. 

SkillTRAN publishes OccuBrowse, Job Browser Pro, and OASYS. The latter two estimate job numbers by DOT code. SkillTRAN uses a SOC/OEWS code intersection with selected industries (NAICS codes) and uses equal distribution to estimate the number of jobs per DOT code at those SOC-NAICS intersections. SkillTRAN uses a proprietary and unpublished methodology and does not use the data from the EP or OEWS that publish SOC-NAICS data. SkillTRAN uses the CBP to modify the data. The SkillTRAN SOC-NAICS data resembles but does not duplicate either the EP or OEWS SOC-NAICS data. 

That is the basic lay of the data. Job requirements are still found in the DOT and the Commissioner clings to that data set. Job requirements are found with current data in the ONET and the ORS. Job numbers are still found in the OOH and CBP -- they are up to date -- as well as the EP and OEWS. Three data sets for requirements and four data sets for job numbers. No one should use the OEQ for any purpose. JBP and OASYS continue to have utility for stating the SOC-NAICS intersection job numbers but does not parse that data based on occupational classifications nor erode for any impairment. JPB and OASYS are starting points. 

Here is the problem. The vocational witness claims to have considered the broad range of data along with their vast (local and anecdotal) experience to derive a job numbers based on no discernible methodology. Some will default to JBP/OASYS. That is at least a defensible starting point. Some will claim that the OEQ remains in the mix. That is bogus. 

And the ALJ corps blindly accepts testimony that is incoherent and meaningless. The witnesses are not consistent across time. They are not consistent with each other according to the cases. Because the claimants have privacy of their medical data, we never get to see the testimony that the witnesses give in different cases or to compare different witnesses in same and similar cases. The system lacks accountability and reliability. The system invoked by SSR 24-3p creates vocational witness lottery. That is not a system of administrative justice; it is legalized gambling with people's lives and the social safety net. 

But I never get passionate about these issues. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, What's Wrong with SSR 24-3p?, California Social Security Attorney (February 26, 2025)  https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

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