Addresser -- A Persistent Favorite of Vocational Witnesses

Assume a person of the same age, education, and work experience of the claimant and assume that the person is limited to sedentary work, sitting six hours in an eight-hour day, frequent handling, frequent fingering, and limited to simple work with no more than occasional interactions with coworkers, supervisors, and the public. Any work?

That person could work as an addresser representing 30,000 jobs in the national economy. 

Is that occupation performed as described in the DOT.

Sometimes workers use typewriters and hand-address labels and envelopes. Sometimes the worker will simply apply labels to envelopes, packages, and cards.

We have heard the mantra. It is nonsense. It is also the recommended explanation that SSA gives to VW in their training. Let's also beat them at their own game.

SkillTRAN estimates that addresser works in eight industries and is also self-employed for a total of 1,952 jobs. Self-employed work is not unskilled work -- it is running a business. Most of the jobs exist in local government, 1,253 jobs. SkillTRAN does not support the existence of 30,000 addresser jobs. 

The OEWS estimates 36,030 jobs for word processors and typists (SOC 43-9022). The EP, OOH, and O*NET reporting the same data set estimate 40,000 jobs. It is curious that a word processor is applying labels. There might be people applying pre-printed labels but they are not word processors and typists, they are general office clerks or mail clerks. The crosswalk places addresser in word processors and typists. The OEWS and OOH defines word processors and typists:

Use word processor, computer, or typewriter to type letters, reports, forms, or other material from rough draft, corrected copy, or voice recording. May perform other clerical duties as assigned. Excludes “Court Reporters and Simultaneous Captioners” (27-3092), “Medical Transcriptionists” (31-9094), “Secretaries and Administrative Assistants” (43-6010), and “Data Entry Keyers” (43-9021).

The O*NET omits the "excludes" portion of the description but is otherwise identical. None of the descriptions leave room for application of labels. 

The crosswalk tells us that word processors and typists contains eight DOT codes, one of them is unskilled, all are sedentary. We should doubt that all word processors and typists are unskilled addressers. 

The 2023 ORS confirms that word processors and typists represent sedentary work in greater than 99.5% of jobs. Call it 100% and move on. The ORS estimates that 26.3% of jobs have up to one month of training. Semi-skilled and skilled work represent 70.6% of jobs. The "less than" estimate of 10% of jobs with a short demonstration (up to four hours) contains all the standard error. If the five state estimates are accurate, the residual is 3.1% of jobs. Let's round up and call it 30% of jobs are unskilled. That means that 10,800 jobs are sedentary and unskilled. Call that progress. 

The ORS describes greater than 50% of jobs have a choice of sitting or standing, less than 50% do not have a choice. Word processors and typists sit 75% of the day at the 10th percentile and more than 75% of the day at all other reported percentiles. Because the "choice" of sitting or standing is "when" and not "how much," the conclusion would leave a person limited to six hours of sitting in a day to 1,080 jobs. 

The O*NET confirms the obvious -- clerical employees work together with other employees. Word processors and typists have constant contact with other in 69% of jobs and most of the time in 31% of jobs. Any limitation on contact or interaction with others eliminates all jobs. The ORS describes all jobs as requiring at least basic people skills. The ORS states that word processors and typists have verbal interactions less than hourly in 23.8% of jobs. The ORS might lead to 2,400 jobs. 

Finally, my favorite source of job numbers. The OEQ assumes 258,841 word processor and typist jobs with one-eighth of them sedentary and unskilled, to wit 32,385 jobs. The SOEUQ suggests 22,695 jobs. Both sources claim reliance on the OES which is the OEWS. We started with the OEWS -- 36,030 jobs total. 

The existence of 30,000 addresser jobs is not sustainable. The only source consistent with that estimate is the OEQ. The SOEUQ contradicts that estimate and comes from the same publisher. Both sources state reliance on the OES, which does not exist. The OEWS and the EP/OOH/O*NET are wholly inconsistent with the OEQ/SOEUQ. And we end where we started, word processors and typists do not affix labels to envelopes, packages, and cards. That is not their job.

The Emergency Message tells the adjudicator to get a further explanation for addresser. When the adjudicators suggest and explanation without looking at the occupational description, we end with a conspiracy to commit idiocy. SSA should go back to the promise made almost 50 years ago -- take administrative notice of jobs, requirements, and job numbers. 

Disgusted.

___________________________


Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Addresser -- A Persistent Favorite of Vocational Witnesses, California Social Security Attorney (September 12, 2025) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com


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

The Problems with the ORS -- Jeff Truthan Speaks at NOSSCR

If you did not attend NOSSCR in San Diego either in person or virtually, you missed out on a very important message from Jeff. He detailed the incomplete nature of the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) and data conflict within the ORS. SkillTRAN holds me out as an important reviewer and co-presenter with Jeff. I have standing to comment. 

1. The ORS covers 477 of 848 civilian Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes in the second wave. It does cover 90% of the jobs in the national economy and additional SOC codes get covered in the first or third waves.   
2. The ORS does not cover General Educational Development (GED) and therefore does not cover Reasoning, Math, and Language (RML). It does cover limited education under the heading of no minimum education required as well and literacy in not required.  
3. The ORS does not cover either Aptitudes or Temperaments. SSA rejects them anyway. 
4. The ORS does not cover Balancing, Feeling, or Tasting. In 40 years, theses physical requirements have never been an issue. 
5. The ORS does not cover visual Accommodation, Color Vision, or Depth Perception. The need for depth perception does arise in some cases. 
6. The ORS does not consistently report Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP). This is a problem if the case turns on transferability of skills, which is less and less likely with the short past relevant work period. 
7. The ORS does not consistently merge educational and certificate requirements into SVP. This is a problem because it could lead to the misidentification of work as unskilled when it is not. 
8. The ORS does not consistently report Strength. Not all strength levels matter so the criticism lacks context. The DOT also contains exertion mistakes -- escort vehicle driver for instance. 
9. The ORS does not cover Work Fields or Materials, Products, Subject Matter, or Services (MPSMS). This is again a transferability issue; SSA recognizes this data in POMS but does not ask witnesses to use the data.
10. The ORS does not cover Guide to Occupational Exploration (GOE) codes. The DOT and SCO do report the GOE codes. No one uses them. They are potentially relevant in the little or no adjustment issues for older workers in transferability. But no one uses them. 
11. The ORS does not cover job duties or tasks. Jeff suggests that the Occupational Wage and Employment Statistics and O*NET cover this data. For our purposes, actual job duties come up under SSR 00-4p, which is now rescinded. 

We have some data. Some data is better than no data. New data is better than out-of-date data. Where the data is missing or the analysis of that data is incomplete, we still have the DOT. And SSA needs to grow up and start using the O*NET for the data points that are unrelated to exertion -- for the same reasons. Some data is better than no data or out-of-date data. The Courts must start enforcing the administrative notice regulation. 20 CFR 404.1566(d). 

If you missed the San Diego conference, get the sessions from NOSSCR. Not just this session but certainly including this session. 

Just do it. 

___________________________


Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, The Problems with the ORS -- Jeff Truthan Speaks at NOSSCR, California Social Security Attorney (September 12, 2025) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com


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

Boonthong -- Replicating Vocational Witness Methodology at the Appeals Council

Where should the intrepid representative submit evidence -- to the ALJ at or after the hearing or to the Appeals Council? The ALJ asks three questions at the hearing:

1. The medical-vocational profile that the ALJ intends to find.
2. A medical-vocational profile that the ALJ might find if it results in jobs. 
3. A medical-vocational profile that the ALJ will not find -- 20% off-task, three absences per month, not full-time work. 

Question #3 is a placebo, a deep fake to the claimant that he/she has been heard and understood. "The jobs person agreed that I could not work." How often does the ALJ rely on question #3? Not very often at all. Anecdotally, representatives tell me that ALJ X adopted question #3 in the residual functional capacity assessment and found the person disabled. Most ALJs ask the profile that will be adopted in the first question. 

What do we do in that circumstance? Go after the vocational witness with hammer and tongs. Get a clear indication of methodology and destroy the credibility of the witness. If a representative really does not want to upset the ALJ because there are three more cases today or this week, get out of the business. Every claimant deserves full effort at the hearing. 

Boonthong v. Bisignano is a failure to cross. The ALJ assessed the profile and the witness identified jobs. "The evidence submitted to the Appeals Council is not sufficiently probative to warrant remand." (Emphasis added, cleaned up). Boonthong relied on White v. Kijakazi. In White, the witness stated that the job numbers came from Job Browser Pro. The Court did not find JBP inherently reliable or always sufficient to contradict the testimony as a matter of law. White relied on Buck v. Berryhill (evidence "presumably from the same source, is simply too striking to be ignored"). A claimant has the right to submit rebuttal evidence to the ALJ. Heckler v. Cambell. Rebuttal evidence does not have to come from the same source or same methodology. It is rebuttal evidence.

Why doesn't that work at the Appeals Council review? Glad you asked. The Appeals Council does not review the ALJ decision de novo. The Appeals Council reviews for:

1. Abuse of discretion.
2. Error of law.
3. Substantial evidence.
4. Broad policy concerns. 
5. New evidence for which good cause exists for not submitting it to the ALJ. 

20 CFR 404.970. "I should have submitted this post hearing to the ALJ but I was really counting on hypothetical #3" is not good cause. 

The question with rebuttal evidence is substantial evidence. Could a reasonable person find that the vocational witness was right? On a record without conflict, the answer is "yes." If the representative does not leave the witness frothing at the mouth because the nonsense has suffered exposure or the witness does not engage in frank capitulation, the representative has failed in the duty to vigorously represent the claimant. 

The Court went on to apply Wischmann v. Kijakazi. Wischmann is a bad OCR where the PDF program thrashed the document. Judge Ikuta is clear in the decision that no one could be confident what was and was not butchered in the record. If an attorney on appeal does not address the underlying problem with Wischmann, that attorney has not thoroughly digested the decision. 

One comment is in order for the unpublished memorandum in Boonthong. The variable that a person can use in Job Browser Pro 1.7.x are:

1.  The DOT code.
2. The local region.
3. Full-time and/or part-time.

In older versions, users could add or subtract industries and change the outcome. That has not been true for at least eight years. 

For the variables that a user can select, the DOT code is obvious; the local region is irrelevant (we are looking at national jobs); and full-time vs. part-time is obvious on the face of the screen shot or the printed report. One more sidebar -- the part-time designation by JBP is not policy compliant. SSA defines full-time as 40 hours, not 35 hours used by SkillTRAN. 

Hammer and tongs means "with great force, vigor, or violence." I would add one more emotive component, enjoyed defense of my client. 

___________________________


Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Boonthong -- Replicating Vocational Witness Methodology at the Appeals Council, California Social Security Attorney (September 1, 2025) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com


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