tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40558649786746291982024-03-16T11:52:34.907-07:00California Social Security Disability AttorneyThe Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing has represented the disabled since 1985 before the Social Security Administration, District Courts across the country, Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the United States Supreme Court.
All rights reserved. Copyright 2018. Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.comBlogger498125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-69923259066697000382024-03-15T06:03:00.000-07:002024-03-15T06:03:53.304-07:00Ferguson v. O'Malley -- When Not Accepting Limitations Described In Testimony Is a Rejection<span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Ninth Circuit published <i><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/03/14/21-35412.pdf" target="_blank">Ferguson v. O'Malley</a></i> on March 14, 2024. The divided panel used the clear and convincing standard to reverse the decision denying Ferguson's benefits. The dissent would affirm. </span><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The decision affirms the proposition that an administrative decision lacks the support of substantial evidence if the ALJ improperly rejected the symptom testimony. The decision relies on <i>Lingenfelter v. Astrue</i>,
504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) and <i>Garrison v. Colvin</i>, 759 F.3d 995,
1014 (9th Cir. 2014). </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Judge Rawlinson in dissent asserts that the substantial evidence standard is not high and some evidence supports the ALJ decision. Judge Rawlinson relies on <i>Ahearn v. Saul</i>,
988 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2021) and <i>Biestek v. Berryhill</i>, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154
(2019). </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The characterization of a decision that does not properly address the testimony as stripping the ALJ decision of a foundation in substantial evidence is the source of the problem. Substantial evidence is a low bar. It gets the case past a directed verdict and is grounds for denying a motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict. According to Judge Rawlinson, there is evidence that Ferguson had less severe symptoms, i.e., the medical evidence. Could a factfinder rely on the medical evidence and reject Ferguson's testimony? In a civil trial, clearly that is the case. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">But this is administrative law. The ALJ must not only reach a permissible result but also reach that result for permissible reasons. The permissible result is the foundation of substantial evidence. The permissible reasons turns on the articulation standards. In essence, the decision holds that the ALJ did not have sufficient reasons for rejecting Ferguson's testimony. That sounds more an error of law rather than a failure of evidence. Therein lies the nuance. The reasons articulated were insufficient to persuade the reasonable mind under <i>Biestek</i> and therefore the decision lacks the support of substantial evidence. It would be easier and avoid Judge Rawlinson's dissent if the decision -- and the decades of precedent -- called a failure to state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the symptom testimony an error of law and a failure of substantial evidence. The clear and convincing standard does invoke a mixed question of law and fact. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Judge Rawlinson rails against the decision because the ALJ did not reject Ferguson's testimony but actually incorporated the testimony into the residual functional capacity assessment. The decision summarizes the record that the ALJ discounted the testimony about the severity and frequency of headaches caused by a history of epilepsy, Arnold-Chiari malformation, and headaches as a separate impairment. Ferguson has headaches that occur two to three times per week and last for up to two days. Judge Rawlinson says that the ALJ accepted the symptom testimony. The ALJ did find headaches but rejected the intensity and persistence of those headaches. This part of the dissent is semantically wrong. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Judge Rawlinson doubles down on the ALJ reliance of activities of daily living. Ferguson watched television and played video games <i>daily </i>(Judge Rawlinson's emphasis). We should play along. Ferguson turns on the TV and plays games every day. He plays for hours and hours. Two or three days a week, he has a headache that lasts for two hours and he cannot watch TV or play games for those two hours. Is the fact that Ferguson watches TV or plays games for eight hours a day evidence that Ferguson could perform the sustained requirements of work on a regular work schedule? Of course not. One or two interruptions per week for up to two hours is an unacceptable interruption of the work pace and productivity required of competitive work. Taking car of wild cats, making meals, building models, attending to self-care, possessing the knowledge and ability to drive do not detract from an episodic impairment. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">If Ferguson had testified that he had headaches 16 hours a day and slept the other 8 hours, having any activity that required concentration to task would contradict the testimony. That was not his testimony according to the decision and the dissent. The substantial evidence standard is not high but it is not a trough either. Substantial evidence satisfies the reasonable mind. Having a host of activities of daily living does not negate the interruption of those activities two or three times per week for up to two hours per day. </span><i style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Garrison</i><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">, 759 F.3d at 1016 addresses the difficulty in applying activities of daily living performed when the person can or wants to perform them to the rigors of performing work functions when the employer wants them done. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Judge Sung joined by Judge Bea reached the right result. The ALJ does not have discretion to reject the testimony about the severity, persistence, and impact of symptoms on the ability to function simply by pointing to the medical evidence or that the claimant does not vegetate in a dark room. That is not the standard. The question is and has always been whether the person could get to work every day, remain productive throughout the day, and continue that pattern week after week, month after month. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">You are an employer. You have a simple job for Ferguson to do. He leaves early, arrives late, or is unproductive for up to two hours at a time </span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">twice a week. How long does that pattern last before Ferguson gets fired -- by you. Severe headaches that render the person unable to function in a work setting on a repeating basis cannot <i>sustain</i> work. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">The dissent is wrong. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Hat tip to Alyson Young and Kevin Kerr. Lawyers do not make enough money on SSI cases in federal court. Lawyers do not make enough money in Social Security cases to warrant a trip to the Court of Appeals in any case. We take the cases because someone has to hold the agency's feet to the fire and someone has to correct persistent errors in the district courts. It is a loss leader. It is the right thing to do. We who journey into the federal courts have more lucrative things to do. But we seek justice because the system needs it. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Ferguson v. O'Malley -- When Not Accepting Limitations Described In Testimony Is a Rejection</i>, California Social Security Attorney (March 15, 2024)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a></p></div><p><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /> </p></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-88007798441317246972024-03-08T06:08:00.000-08:002024-03-10T19:56:45.677-07:00January 2024 Unpublished Ninth Circuit Memoranda -- What Is Not Working<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Two months into the 2024 calendar and the Ninth Circuit has issued nine unpublished memoranda, two in January. We take a look at those two dispositions to get a sense of what works and what does not work. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">1. <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2024/01/05/23-35096.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Cross v. O'Malley</i></a> - We discussed using the APA as a basis for reviewing SSA decisions and actions in the discussion of <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2024/01/another-argument-crossed-off-cross-v.html" target="_blank">published part of the disposition of this case</a>. The court affirmed the Commissioner. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> a. </span>In the memorandum, the court repeats the conclusion that the refusal to reopen or revise a prior decision/determination is not subject to judicial review. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> b. Dr. Loreli suggested caution in relying on test results and observed that Cross gave up quickly. The ALJ relied on inconsistencies (not specified in the memorandum) between Dr. Loreli's opinion and the medical records.</span><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"> c. Cross raised error in failing to include PCOS (<a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/polycystic-ovary-syndrome-pcos#:~:text=Polycystic%20ovary%20syndrome%20(PCOS)%20is,that%20form%20in%20the%20ovaries." target="_blank">polycystic ovary syndrome</a>) is the list of severe impairments. The ALJ proceeded past step two. The ALJ would include limitations from severe and non-severe impairments in the residual functional capacity assessment. Counsel conceded at oral argument that the record did not include evidence of limitations from PCOS during the relevant period. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> d. Cross contended that the ALJ did not properly consider the symptoms and limitations. The memorandum cites the ALJ reliance on inconsistencies about the presence of seizures, the need for daytime sleeping, the ability to drive, and activities of daily living. </span><br /></span></p><p><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> e. Cross contended that the ALJ failed to include all limitations in the examination of the vocational witness. This is not a separate issue but a rehash of the opinion evidence and testimonial evidence issue. The step five hypothetical question issue compares the question to the RFC. This issue is otherwise relegated to a materiality component of the second, third, and fourth issues. </span><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span><span>2. <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2024/01/23/22-35866.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Kennedy v. O'Malley</i></a> - </span></span>The court affirmed the Commissioner. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> a. Kennedy provided evidence that Dr. Pickett provided false evidence in another case, not this case but another case. Kennedy did not provide that evidence to the ALJ. Nor did Kennedy present the evidence to the district court. The issue was waived. Nor could Kennedy point to any part of the report in this case that was false. </span><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"> b. Kennedy raised the issue rejected in <i>Cross</i>. A panel cannot override a precedential decision of another panel. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> c. Kennedy contended that the ALJ improperly rejected parts of one consultative examiner's opinions and all of the other CE. The ALJ relied on normal EMG studies to reject lifting limitations below the 10/20 required by the definition of light work. The ALJ (referred to as IJ in the memorandum) could reject an unexplained conclusion as neither inherently valuable or persuasive. </span><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> d. Kennedy raised the excess pain argument. The ALJ pointed to evidence of malingering and the lack of objective findings. Kennedy participated in pain management but stopped taking the medication. </span><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span><span><span> e. The ALJ did not address the observations of the SSA employee citing 20 CFR </span></span></span>§ 404.1520c(d). The panel got it wrong. The regulations bind the ALJ to "consider all of the evidence presented, including [...] observations by our employees." 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3). "Consider" means what it means in grade school, "show your work." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> f. </span>Kennedy contended that the ALJ failed to include all limitations in the examination of the vocational witness. See the discussion of Cross, supra, at paragraph e. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The common thread is Cross and Kennedy is mistaking an incomplete hypothetical that matches the RFC assessed as an independent issue. <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">See </span><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12453507206819028313&q=embrey+v+bowen&hl=en&as_sdt=4,114,129" style="background-color: white; color: #1a0dab;"><i>Embrey v. Bowen</i>, 849 F.2d 418, 423 (9th Cir. 1988)</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> (requiring remand and reconsideration because the ALJ's hypothetical did not reflect all of the claimant's limitations). </span>It is not. The incomplete hypothetical show materiality of an RFC that lacks the support of substantial evidence. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4949752529073067410&q=hypothetical&hl=en&as_sdt=4,114,129" style="background-color: white; color: #1a0dab;"><i>Bruton v. Massanari</i>, 268 F.3d 824, 828 n.1 (9th Cir. 2001)</a> (ALJ could not rely on the grids where the RFC has a non-exertional limitation not considered, that the ALJ did not find to be true)<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">.</span></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>January 2024 Unpublished Ninth Circuit Memoranda -- What Is Not Working</i>, California Social Security Attorney (March 8, 2024)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a></p></div><p><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /> </p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-35017490484989447772024-02-24T11:18:00.000-08:002024-03-08T05:59:25.878-08:00Accessing ORS Reports from Job Browser Pro -- Marker for Example<p> Vocational witnesses identify marker, DOT 209.587-034, as a go to light occupation with simple routine or repetitive duties involving occasional contact. With reasoning level 2, marker fits the simple work mantra in many jurisdictions. VW find refuge in this occupation; Job Browser Pro estimates 165,000 jobs. </p><p>One of the features of JBP is the hyperlink button to the ORS data. JBP reports the first final and second final wave estimates. For marker, the hyperlink button to "Show ORS Data" is greyed out. With 2,8 million jobs in the occupational group and 165,000 jobs in the DOT code, certainly the Bureau of Labor Statistics has gotten to this occupational group. It has. </p><p>The 2018 revisions of the Standard Occupational Classification moved SOC 43-5081, stock clerks and order fillers, to SOC 53-7065, stockers and order fillers. The O*NET divided stock clerks and order fillers into detailed categories:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span> SOC 43-5081.01, Stock Clerks, Sales Floor</span></li><li><span> SOC 43-5081.02, Marking Clerks</span></li><li><span> SOC 43-5081.03, Stock Clerks - Stockroom, Warehouses, or Storage Yard</span></li><li><span> SOC 43-5081.04, Order Fillers, Wholesale and Retail Sales</span></li></ol>The 2018 ORS dataset provided provides data for the first, third, and fourth, but not for marking clerks. The 2018 SOC moved the category to 53-7065. <a href="https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/53-7065.00">The O*NET</a> did not maintain the four detailed classifications. Subsequent editions of the ORS also dropped the four O*NET detailed data and adopted the singular SOC classification for the numerous jobs and occupations.<br /> <br />The ORS did not cover marking clerks, including marker, in the 2018 data set. The ORS covers the entire range in the 2023 data set. <a href="https://www.occucollect.com">Occu Collect</a> provides all the reports in the front page or in archives. The question is how to extract the data from JBP and SkillTRAN. <br /><br />Clicking on the hyperlink button takes the user to https://online.skilltran.com/cbp/orsResults.php?dot=XXXXXXXXX. If you try to go there directly, it won't work. That URL works from JBP but not natively. The nine Xs are the DOT code. Open JPB to any occupation that has ORS data. I use lens inserter. When you get to the DOT estimate for that other occupation, click on the ORS hyperlink. When JBP opens your browser to that page, change the URL with the DOT code for your occupation to the DOT code for marker, no hyphen, no spaces, "209387034." You now have the 2023 ORS data for stockers and order fillers.<br /><br />What does the ORS tell us about stockers and order fillers? The jobs require SSA defined medium exertion and require more than six hours of standing and walking, <div><br /></div><div>Some may notice the the "SSA definition of medium exertion." BLS defines light exertion as lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling up to 25 pounds occasionally. The DOT used 20 pounds as do the SSA regulations. No matter what the ruling, ALJ, VW, or court may say, there is not soft much less a hard limit on the amount of standing and walking required of any range of work except sedentary, 2.7 hours. </div><div><br /></div><div>Use of other resources in <a href="https://www.occucollect.com">Occu Collect</a> as well as hyperlinked in JBP on the detailed job specialty page, the O*NET OnLine in particular, confirm the pedestrian observation that unskilled work requires working on conjunction with or proximity to others. Stockers and order fillers of occasional or no contact with others in 4% of jobs and do not have at least a fairly important job function of working with a group or team in 4% of jobs. </div><div><br /></div><div>If the question asks for light work (SSA definition), standing/walking six hours combined in a workday, simple and routine/repetitive tasks, involving no more than occasional contact/interaction with other, the occupation of marker does not fit based on exertion, standing/walking, and contact with others. JBP does not integrate the data from the ORS or the O*NET into its job number estimates. Those estimates arrive from an occupation-industry intersection divided by the DOT codes at that intersection. </div><div><br /></div><div>Some limitations in the tools we use have a workaround. This is one of them. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Accessing ORS Reports from Job Browser Pro -- Marker for Example</i>, California Social Security Attorney (February 24, 2024, corrected March 8, 2024)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a></p></div><p><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /> </p></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-18052111650116686482024-02-19T07:38:00.000-08:002024-03-08T06:56:09.679-08:00The 2023 Occupational Requirements Survey Data Set -- A Must Use Resource<p>The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the 2023 data set for the ORS. BLS has finally filled in the gaps and reported significantly more data than in either the first wave culminating in the 2018 first wave or any data set from 2019 to 2022. I examined the data for the go to occupations for vocational experts in the light and sedentary categories -- Production Workers, All Other (SOC 51-9199). This list contains 52 of 137 sedentary unskilled codes and over 400 of the 1,400 light unskilled DOT codes. The testimony that any of those occupations represent more than a handful of jobs is unsupportable. </p><p>The ORS reports that production workers require:</p><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span> </span>strength required is <a href=" ORS 2023 Report SOC #/Occupation Group Name: 51-9199 (Production workers, all other) Select Filter: All Cognitive And Mental Requirements Education, Training, And Experience Environmental Conditions Physical Demands 51-9199 - Production workers, all other Cognitive And Mental Requirements Report Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001149 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; supervisory duties are not required Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: supervisory duties are not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001149 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001150 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; supervisory duties are required Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: supervisory duties are required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001150 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001154 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; work reviewed by supervisor more than once per day Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: work reviewed by supervisor more than once per day Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 76.1 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001154 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001155 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; work reviewed by supervisor once per day Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: work reviewed by supervisor once per day Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 11.9 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001155 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001160 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; where supervisor is present Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: where supervisor is present Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 93.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001160 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001161 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; where supervisor is not present Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: where supervisor is not present Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 6.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001161 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001164 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; workload is controlled by machinery, equipment, or software Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: workload is controlled by machinery, equipment, or software Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 27.5 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001164 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001165 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; workload is controlled by numerical performance targets Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: workload is controlled by numerical performance targets Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 3.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001165 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001166 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; workload is controlled by people Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: workload is controlled by people Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 67.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001166 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001167 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; workload is self-paced Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: workload is self-paced Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001167 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001168 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; workload is controlled by other external source Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: workload is controlled by other external source Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001168 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001171 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with consistent, generally fast work pace Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with consistent, generally fast work pace Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 43.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001171 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001172 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with consistent, generally slow work pace Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with consistent, generally slow work pace Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 1.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001172 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001173 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with varying work pace Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with varying work pace Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 54.6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001173 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001176 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with the ability to pause work Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with the ability to pause work Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 45.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001176 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001177 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; without the ability to pause work Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: without the ability to pause work Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 54.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001177 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001180 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; required to have verbal interaction constantly, every few minutes Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: required to have verbal interaction constantly, every few minutes Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001180 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001181 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; required to have verbal interaction not constantly, but more than once per hour Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: required to have verbal interaction not constantly, but more than once per hour Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 28.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001181 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001182 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; required to have verbal interaction not more than once per hour, but more than once per day Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: required to have verbal interaction not more than once per hour, but more than once per day Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 65.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001182 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001183 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; required to have verbal interaction once per day or less often Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: required to have verbal interaction once per day or less often Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 5.6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001183 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001186 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with basic people skills Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with basic people skills Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 89.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001186 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001187 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with more than basic people skills Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with more than basic people skills Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 10.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001187 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001190 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; problem solving is required more than once per day Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: problem solving is required more than once per day Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001190 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001191 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; problem solving is required once per day Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: problem solving is required once per day Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001191 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001192 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; problem solving is required not every day, but at least once per week Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: problem solving is required not every day, but at least once per week Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001192 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001193 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; problem solving is required not every week, but at least once per month Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: problem solving is required not every week, but at least once per month Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001193 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001194 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; problem solving is required less often than monthly, including never Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: problem solving is required less often than monthly, including never Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 87.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001194 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001197 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; interaction with general public is required Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: interaction with general public is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 4.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001197 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001198 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; interaction with general public is not required Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: interaction with general public is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 95.2 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001198 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001201 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; working around crowds is required Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: working around crowds is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001201 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001202 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; working around crowds is not required Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: working around crowds is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001202 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001205 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with telework available Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with telework available Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001205 Series ID: ORUC1000031J00001206 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; with telework not available Requirement: Cognitive And Mental Requirements Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: with telework not available Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUC1000031J00001206 Education, Training, And Experience Report Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000065 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; specific vocational preparation is beyond short demonstration through 1 month Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: specific vocational preparation is beyond short demonstration through 1 month Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 26.4 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000065 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000066 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; specific vocational preparation is over 1 month through 3 months Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: specific vocational preparation is over 1 month through 3 months Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 35.6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000066 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000068 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; specific vocational preparation is over 6 months through 1 year Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: specific vocational preparation is over 6 months through 1 year Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000068 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000069 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; specific vocational preparation is over 1 year through 2 years Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: specific vocational preparation is over 1 year through 2 years Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 1.4 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000069 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000070 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; specific vocational preparation is over 2 years through 4 years Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: specific vocational preparation is over 2 years through 4 years Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 13.5 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000070 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000071 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; specific vocational preparation is over 4 years through 10 years Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: specific vocational preparation is over 4 years through 10 years Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000071 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000072 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; specific vocational preparation is over 10 years Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: specific vocational preparation is over 10 years Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000072 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000075 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; no minimum education requirement Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: no minimum education requirement Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 79.2 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000075 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000076 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is a high school diploma Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is a high school diploma Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 20.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000076 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000077 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is an associate's degree Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is an associate's degree Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000077 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000079 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is a master's degree Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is a master's degree Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000079 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000080 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is a professional degree Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is a professional degree Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000080 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000081 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is a doctorate degree Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is a doctorate degree Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000081 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000085 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; no minimum education required, and literacy is required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: no minimum education required, and literacy is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 78.5 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000085 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000086 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; no minimum education required, and literacy is not required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: no minimum education required, and literacy is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 0.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000086 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000098 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials are required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials are required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000098 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000099 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials are not required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials are not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 93 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000099 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000107 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; prior work experience is required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: prior work experience is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 58.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000107 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000114 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; prior work experience is not required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: prior work experience is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 41.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000114 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000116 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; days of on-the-job training, mean Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: days of on-the-job training, mean Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 14.88 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000116 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000119 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; days of on-the-job training (50th percentile - median) Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: days of on-the-job training (50th percentile - median) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 14 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000119 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000120 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; days of on-the-job training (75th percentile) Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: days of on-the-job training (75th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 21 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000120 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000121 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; days of on-the-job training (90th percentile) Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: days of on-the-job training (90th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 30 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000121 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000122 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; on-the-job training is required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: on-the-job training is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 98.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000122 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000123 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; on-the-job training is not required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: on-the-job training is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 1.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000123 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000803 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is a high school vocational degree Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is a high school vocational degree Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000803 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00000804 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is an associate's vocational degree Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is an associate's vocational degree Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000804 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001029 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; minimum education level is a bachelor's degree Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: minimum education level is a bachelor's degree Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001029 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001084 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: certification is required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: certification is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001084 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001085 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: certification is not required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: certification is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001085 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001087 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: license is required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: license is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001087 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001088 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: license is not required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: license is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001088 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001090 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: educational certificate is required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: educational certificate is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001090 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001091 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: educational certificate is not required Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: educational certificate is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001091 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001107 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: certification is required, with no associated time Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: certification is required, with no associated time Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001107 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001108 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: certification is required, with associated time Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: certification is required, with associated time Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001108 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001111 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: license is required, with no associated time Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: license is required, with no associated time Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001111 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001112 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: license is required, with associated time Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: license is required, with associated time Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001112 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001127 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: educational certificate is required, with no associated time Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: educational certificate is required, with no associated time Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001127 Series ID: ORUV1000031J00001128 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; credentials: educational certificate is required, with associated time Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: credentials: educational certificate is required, with associated time Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00001128 Physical Demands Report Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000125 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of standing, mean Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of standing, mean Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 7.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000125 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000126 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of standing (10th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of standing (10th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000126 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000127 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of standing (25th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of standing (25th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000127 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000128 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of standing (50th percentile - median) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of standing (50th percentile - median) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000128 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000129 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of standing (75th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of standing (75th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000129 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000130 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of standing (90th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of standing (90th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000130 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000132 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of sitting, mean Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of sitting, mean Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 0.5 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000132 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000133 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of sitting (10th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of sitting (10th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000133 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000134 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of sitting (25th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of sitting (25th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000134 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000135 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of sitting (50th percentile - median) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of sitting (50th percentile - median) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000135 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000137 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; hours of sitting (90th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hours of sitting (90th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 2 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000137 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000139 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; choice of sitting or standing is allowed Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: choice of sitting or standing is allowed Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 15.5 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000139 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000140 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; choice of sitting or standing is not allowed Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: choice of sitting or standing is not allowed Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 84.5 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000140 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000159 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; reaching at or below the shoulder is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: reaching at or below the shoulder is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 7.2 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000159 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000161 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; reaching at or below the shoulder is required, occasionally Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: reaching at or below the shoulder is required, occasionally Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 16 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000161 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000173 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; reaching at or below the shoulder is required, one hand Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: reaching at or below the shoulder is required, one hand Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000173 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000174 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; reaching at or below the shoulder is required, both hands Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: reaching at or below the shoulder is required, both hands Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 92.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000174 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000176 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; keyboarding is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: keyboarding is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 85.4 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000176 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000177 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; keyboarding is required, seldom Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: keyboarding is required, seldom Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 6.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000177 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000178 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; keyboarding is required, occasionally Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: keyboarding is required, occasionally Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 7.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000178 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000179 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; keyboarding is required, frequently Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: keyboarding is required, frequently Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000179 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000180 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; keyboarding is required, constantly Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: keyboarding is required, constantly Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000180 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000233 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; pounds maximum weight lifted or carried, mean Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted or carried, mean Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 39.63 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000233 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000234 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (10th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (10th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 25 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000234 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000235 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (25th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (25th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 30 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000235 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000236 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (50th percentile - median) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (50th percentile - median) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 40 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000236 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000237 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (75th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (75th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 50 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000237 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000238 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Civilian production workers, all other; pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (90th percentile) Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted or carried (90th percentile) Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 50 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000238 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000239 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, seldom Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, seldom Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 1.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000239 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000243 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying > 100 lbs is required, seldom Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying > 100 lbs is required, seldom Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000243 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000246 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, occasionally Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, occasionally Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 57.1 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000246 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000250 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying > 100 lbs is required, occasionally Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying > 100 lbs is required, occasionally Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000250 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000254 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, frequently Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, frequently Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 17.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000254 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000255 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying > 10 lbs and less than or equal to 25 lbs is required, frequently Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying > 10 lbs and less than or equal to 25 lbs is required, frequently Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 18.9 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000255 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000256 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying > 25 lbs and less than or equal to 50 lbs is required, frequently Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying > 25 lbs and less than or equal to 50 lbs is required, frequently Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000256 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000257 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying > 50 lbs is required, frequently Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying > 50 lbs is required, frequently Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000257 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000259 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying no weight is required, constantly Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying no weight is required, constantly Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 62.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000259 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000262 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, constantly Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: lifting or carrying >1 lb and less than or equal to 10 lbs is required, constantly Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000262 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000267 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; crawling is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: crawling is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 95.1 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000267 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000311 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; driving is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: driving is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 79.9 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000311 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000330 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; gross manipulation is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: gross manipulation is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000330 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000331 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; gross manipulation is required, seldom Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: gross manipulation is required, seldom Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000331 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000332 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; gross manipulation is required, occasionally Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: gross manipulation is required, occasionally Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 5.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000332 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000333 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; gross manipulation is required, frequently Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: gross manipulation is required, frequently Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 54.1 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000333 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000334 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; gross manipulation is required, constantly Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: gross manipulation is required, constantly Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 40.1 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000334 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000344 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; gross manipulation is required, one hand Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: gross manipulation is required, one hand Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000344 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000345 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; gross manipulation is required, both hands Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: gross manipulation is required, both hands Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000345 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000347 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; fine manipulation is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: fine manipulation is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000347 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000362 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; fine manipulation is required, both hands Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: fine manipulation is required, both hands Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 56.6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000362 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000367 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; climbing work-related ramps or stairs is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: climbing work-related ramps or stairs is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 87.1 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000367 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000381 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 95.4 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000381 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000382 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, seldom Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, seldom Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 4.6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000382 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000383 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, occasionally Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, occasionally Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000383 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000384 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, frequently Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, frequently Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000384 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000385 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, constantly Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds is required, constantly Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000385 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000395 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; stooping is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: stooping is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 24.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000395 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000409 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; kneeling is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: kneeling is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 31.5 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000409 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000548 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; near vision is required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: near vision is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000548 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000549 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; near vision is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: near vision is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000549 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000551 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; far vision is required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: far vision is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 56.4 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000551 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000552 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; far vision is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: far vision is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 43.6 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000552 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000554 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; peripheral vision is required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: peripheral vision is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 56.3 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000554 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000555 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; peripheral vision is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: peripheral vision is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 43.7 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000555 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000583 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; hearing over the telephone is required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hearing over the telephone is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 21.1 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000583 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000584 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; hearing over the telephone is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hearing over the telephone is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 78.9 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000584 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000586 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; hearing other sounds is required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hearing other sounds is required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 69.2 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000586 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000587 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; hearing other sounds is not required Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: hearing other sounds is not required Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual 30.8 https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000587 Series ID: ORUP1000031J00000661 Not seasonally adjusted Series Title: Percent of civilian production workers, all other; strength required is sedentary Requirement: Physical Demands Occupation: Production workers, all other Estimate: strength required is sedentary Year Period Estimate 2023 Annual - https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000661" target="_blank">sedentary</a>: -</li><li><span> </span>strength required is <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000662" target="_blank">light</a>: 11.1%</li><li> strength required is <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000663" target="_blank">medium</a>: 84.5%</li><li><span> strength required is <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000664" target="_blank">heavy</a>: 4.2%</span></li></ol></div><p><span>The Occupational Outlook Handbook reports that production workers represent 226,900 jobs in the nation. The Occupational Employment & Wage Statistics </span>reports that production workers represent 252,660 jobs in the nation. Trusting government statistics reported to OMB standards, there are no jobs in the sedentary exertion and fewer than 28,000 jobs in the light exertion categories. The ORS reports that production workers have: </p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span> </span>specific vocational preparation is beyond <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000065" target="_blank">short demonstration through 1 month</a>: 26.4% </li><li><strong></strong> specific vocational preparation is over <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000066" target="_blank">1 month through 3 months</a>: 35.6%</li><li> specific vocational preparation is over <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000068" target="_blank">6 months through 1 year</a>: -</li><li> specific vocational preparation is over <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000069" target="_blank">1 year through 2 years</a>: 1.4%</li><li> specific vocational preparation is over <a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000031J00000070" target="_blank">2 years through 4 years</a>: 13.5%</li></ol><div>On the issue of how much standing and walking is required for production workers:</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li> <strong></strong> hours of standing (<a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000126" target="_blank">10th percentile</a>): 6</li><li> hours of standing (<a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000127" target="_blank">25th percentile</a>): 6</li><li> hours of standing (<a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000128" target="_blank">50th percentile - median</a>): 8</li><li> hours of standing (<a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000129" target="_blank">75th percentile</a>): 8</li><li> hours of standing (<a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00000130" target="_blank">90th percentile</a>): 8</li></ol><div>The percent of the day reports suggest that some of the jobs are part-time:</div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li> percent of day standing is required (<a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00001004" target="_blank">10th percentile</a>): 75%</li><li> percent of day standing is required (<a href="https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000031J00001005" target="_blank">25th percentile</a>): 100%</li></ol></div></div><p></p><p><span>The existence of sedentary and light unskilled work that exists in significant numbers is less than 7,000 jobs -- total. That gross estimate assumes that skill levels cross exertional levels with the same relative frequency. If skill level and exertion level as inversely correlated (sedentary and light work are more likely to represent skilled or semi-skilled work), then the estimate goes down. If the person has a limit to standing and walking 6 hours in a workday, the estimate drops by over half. </span><br /></p><p>Job Browser Pro hyperlinks to the ORS data reporting the 2018 final first wave and the 2023 final second wave data side-by-side. <a href="https://www.occucollect.com" target="_blank">OccuCollect</a> reports the data files for 2017 through 2022 in the Archives and 2023 final second wave data on the main page. Note that Job Browser Pro reports the ORS data but does not incorporate that data into job number estimates. </p><p>Vocational testimony that any unskilled production worker occupation represents a significant number of jobs, go after the issue. The witness is wrong. </p><p>Don't let vocational witnesses rob your clients of benefits or you of hard-earned fees. </p><p><br /></p><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>The 2023 Occupational Requirements Survey Data Set -- A Must Use Resource</i>, California Social Security Attorney (February 19, 2024)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a></p></div><p><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-40870786502406480462024-01-07T16:09:00.000-08:002024-03-08T06:56:28.332-08:00Another Argument Crossed Off -- Cross v. O'Malley<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Ninth Circuit published its opinion in <i><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/01/05/23-35096.pdf" target="_blank">Cross v. O'Malley</a></i> on January 5, 2024. This is the first published opinion of the year and the first decision by the Ninth Circuit to name O'Malley as the COSS. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Cross contends that the COSS erred in eliminating the treating relationship from the first tier of consideration of medical evidence under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Court cited the broad powers delegated to the COSS under the Social Security Act. 42 USC <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 15px;">§</span> 405(a). The Court relied on <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4503651684013538360&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Bowen v. Yuckert</a></i>, 482 U.S. 137, 145 (1987) and <i>Heckler v. Campbell</i>, 461 U.S. 458, 466 (1983). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><i>Yuckert </i>does not cite the Administrative Procedure Act. <i>Campbell</i> cites <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 15px;">5 USC § 556(e) for the proposition that taking administrative notice requires that the litigant be given the opportunity to respond. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px;">In <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3911455276686698899&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Califano v. Sanders</a></i>, 420 U.S. 99, 103-04 (1977), Court held that the Seventh Circuit reliance on the APA for the jurisdiction to review a refusal to reopen and revise was wrong. The Court held that "</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 15px;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">the APA is not to be interpreted as an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions." <i>Id.</i> at 105. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 15px;">The Social Security Act incorporates the APA into the Medicare reimbursement cases. 42 USC </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 15px;">§ 1395oo(f)(1); <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16178982096107306968&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala</a></i>, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 15px;"><i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3710311065179893275&q=social+security+and+APA&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004" target="_blank">Heckler v. Ringer</a></i>, 466 U.S. 602, 622 (1984) held that the Social Security Act precluded jurisdiction under the APA. See also, </span><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12559409966950141262&q=social+security+and+APA&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004" target="_blank"><i>Weinberger</i> v. </a><i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12559409966950141262&q=social+security+and+APA&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004" target="_blank">Salfi</a>,</i> 422 U. S. 749 (1975) (constitutional claims barred by the exclusive jurisdiction of <span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-size: 15px;">§</span> 405(h). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Does the APA apply to regulations promulgated by SSA? Maybe but <i>Cross</i> does not make clear that it does. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Still puzzled. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Opinions Outside the Relevant Period, Probative -- Carrier v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (January 7, 2024) (amended March 7, 2024).<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a></p></div><p><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /> </p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-75597229871646688932023-12-21T05:17:00.000-08:002023-12-21T05:17:12.570-08:00A Forney Appeal Expands the Scope of Remand -- Sakowitz v. Kijakazi<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">A civil procedure/appellate law throwback. The foundational cases is <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6259879586357529799&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Forney v. Apfel</a>, </i></span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">524 U.S. 266 (1998). In a unanimous decision, <i>Forney </i>held that a prevailing plaintiff in an action to review the final decision of the Commissioner could appeal where the District Court reversed on some issues, but not all the issues that the plaintiff raised. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">In <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16316595865232656419&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Forney v. Chater</a></i>, 108 F.3d 228 (9th Cir. 1997), the Circuit Court held that the <i>Restatement Second of Judgments</i> sec. 27 did not impose collateral estoppel on the issues the District Court affirmed, only the issues where the District Court reversed the final decision of the COSS. The Supreme Court reversed because an aggrieved party can appeal a decision granting in part and denying in part the remedy requested. </span></p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">On remand from the Supreme Court, the <a href="https://casetext.com/case/forney-v-apfel-1" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit</a> (176 F.3d 482 (Table) 1999 WL 197237) </span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">affirmed the finding that the ALJ properly rejected the treating physician; reversed on the rejection of Forney's testimony; reversed on the rejection of Forney's husband's testimony; found that the failure to account for limitations caused by pain rendered the vocational expert testimony insubstantial; and affirmed the District Court finding that the ALJ failed to consider the DOT/SCO (a year before the COSS published SSR 00-4p). Having had his deep dive into the </span><i style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Restatement</i><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> reversed, Judge Kleinfeld dissented that he would affirm the ALJ on all counts. </span><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">On a side note, the COSS did not cross-appeal from the judgment of the District Court. As the majority stated, that issue was not before Court of Appeals. <br /></span><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Enter <i><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2023/12/20/22-16578.pdf" target="_blank">Sakowitz v. Kijakazi</a></i>. Part 3 of the decision says:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Because neither party challenges the district court’s decision to remand
for reconsideration of Dr. Warbritton’s opinion, we do not address this aspect of
the district court’s decision.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Sakowitz won at the District Court. As <i>Forney </i>on remand suggests, a panel could take it all away even if the COSS does not cross-appeal. The majority in <i>Forney </i>on remand and this panel have it right. The Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to rake away the favorable parts of the District Court judgment absent a cross-appeal from the COSS. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><i>Sakowitz </i>adds to the breadth of the remand order. <i>Sakowitz </i>holds that the ALJ erred in rejecting the symptom and limitation testimony; erred in rejecting the opinion from a second treating physician; and failed to provide germane reasons for rejecting the opinions of treating chiropractors. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Are <i>Forney</i> appeals necessary? If the remand hearing is de novo on all issues, the answer is "no, <i>Forney</i> appeals are not necessary unless the plaintiff has a real shot at a reversal for the payment of benefits." If a remand hearing is not de novo but invokes law of the case and rule of mandate, then <i>Forney</i> appeals are absolutely necessary to broaden the scope of the remand hearing. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The law of the case and the rule of mandate apply in Social Security cases. The purpose of an appeal (or complaint for review) is to narrow the scope of the later proceedings. The purpose of a court order is to correct errors. The idea that a step five reversal on a reaching issue would require the ALJ to reconsider Forney's, her husband's, and to include those factors into an examination of the vocational expert represents a very large set of dice and a prayer for a benevolent ALJ. Absent a court order calling for a de novo hearing, the proceedings on remand must comply with the order of the District Court. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><i>Sakowitz </i>does not cite <i>Forney</i>. It doesn't have to cite <i>Forney</i>. The work done 25 years ago settled the law. We no longer need a law review article hashing through the <i>Restatement Second of Judgments</i> or the relevant Supreme Court decisions on appealability or when a party is aggrieved. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Hat tip to Julien Swanson, the <a href="https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2020cv06157/365302" target="_blank">attorney of record in <i>Sakowitz</i></a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">And a hat tip to Ralph Wilborn, Tim Wilborn, and Eric Schnaufer for <i>Forney </i>so long ago. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>A Forney Appeal Expands the Scope of Remand -- Sakowitz v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (December 21, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span></p></div><p></p></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-63098069952628845092023-12-15T06:45:00.000-08:002023-12-15T06:45:23.404-08:00Opinions Outside the Relevant Period, Probative -- Carrier v. Kijakazi<p>Catching up reversals by the Ninth Circuit in unpublished memoranda. We can extract a sense of the direction of the court and various panels. Unpublished memoranda are not precedent. <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2023/11/20/22-35999.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Carrier v. Kijakazi</i></a> is on of those non-precedential decisions. </p><p>Carrier applied for benefits before March 2017. The physician hierarchy applies from case law and the regulatory nod found in 20 CFR 404.1527. See, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13108825955456466356&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank"><i>Lester v. Chater</i>, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)</a>. The specific and legitimate standard applies. </p><p>The ALJ gave little weight because the treating physician expressed an opinion after the relevant period. <i>Carrier</i> observes that the doctor treated Carrier during the relevant period and the opinion addressed the relevant period. The ALJ relied on non-treating opinions expressed outside the relevant period. <i>Carrier </i>found the articulation not legitimate. </p><p>The ALJ picked references in the treating notes that Carrier was alert and oriented. <i>Carrier </i>points out that the record includes presentations with substantial pain and limitations including pain-induced nausea. The ALJ did not read the alert and oriented references in the context of the record as a whole. </p><p>The ALJ relied on Carrier's activities of daily living. The ALJ did not compare the activities cited to evidence of difficulty making meals or performing household chores. The medical record repeated the subjective statement that cooking aggravated low back pain. Carrier's walking on a treadmill as part of a rehabilitation program one time did not provide a basis for relying on ADLs. Trying to do some gardening and ending up with spasms and increased pain is likewise an insufficient basis for rejecting evidence describing greater limitations. </p><p>The ALJ relied on travel from Seattle to Idaho. But Carrier described the trip as tough and that opiates barely helped. The pain made Carrier nauseas. During a party, Carrier secluded herself in a corner and was embarrassed. The ALJ did not state clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the testimony, did not explain how the activities translated to a work setting, and inappropriately relied on sporadic activities. </p><p>The Court made short shrift of the ALJ's limited treatment of Carrier's testimony. The Court also reached the third-party testimony finding that the ALJ did not state germane reasons for rejecting that testimony. </p><p>The current regulatory paradigm does away with the specific and legitimate standard. <i>Carrier</i> reverses because the ALJ's stated reasons fail to meet that standard. <i>Woods v. Kijakazi</i>, 32 F.4th 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2022) still requires explanations supported by substantial evidence, sufficient to persuade a reasonable mind. Reversing the ALJ's treatment of the treating physician here does not rely on the physician hierarchy described in <i>Lester</i>, this case turns on the lack of persuasive value of the articulations and the lack of evidentiary support for those articulations. The hierarchy is dead but the ALJ still needs statements supported by substantial evidence to reject any physician opinion.</p><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Opinions Outside the Relevant Period, Probative -- Carrier v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (December 15, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a></p></div><p><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /> </p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-37193686322791964962023-12-06T06:37:00.000-08:002023-12-06T10:18:35.107-08:00An Update on White v. Kiajakzi -- 2023 EAJA<span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">In the rundown of <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-overview-of-2022-ninth-circuit.html">2022 published Ninth Circuit cases</a>, I wrote:</span><br /><blockquote><i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17894573855275551361&hl=en&as_sdt=2006">White v. Kijakazi</a>,</i> 44 F.4th 828 (2022) - if the claimant submits rebuttal evidence in the form of Job Browser Pro to the Appeals Council, is a remand necessary to allow the ALJ to address the evidence and to resolve the inconsistency? Held, a remand is appropriate to allow the ALJ to resolve the inconsistency between the vocational testimony and the data provided by Job Browser Pro. <br /><br />A number of district courts had held that the ALJ had no duty to address rebuttal evidence not in the DOT and had held that Appeals Council evidence was too late. See, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18321743707605286263&q=ford+v.+saul&hl=en&as_sdt=2006"><i>Ford v. Saul</i></a>. </blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">In the 16 months since publication, courts have cited <i>White </i>60 times according to Google Scholar. Those cases cite <i>White</i> for the application of Job Browser Pro 26 times. The Court of Appeals cited <i>White</i> in two unpublished memoranda and in the disastrous decision in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8023884612663441283&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Wischmann v. Kijakazi</a></i>. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">On remand, White sought fee relief under the Equal Access to Justice Act. As an aside, everyone should have in their pocket that attorneys do not make money on circuit court appeals. It isn't that we don't get paid, it is that we don't get paid enough, never do. An appeal in any other area of law would generate fees between $60,000 and $100,000. It takes that much effort, skill, and a pinch of luck. The identity of the panel makes a difference, after all we lost in the USDC. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Back to White's application for fees. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1785154789762198586&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Magistrate Judge Allison Claire denied the motion</a>. Judge Claire found that the COSS was substantially justified:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Indeed, the undersigned initially ruled in favor of the Commissioner based on the law as it existed and was understood at the time.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Who cares? Three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel reversed because it was legal error to fail to consider and reconcile the Job Browser Pro evidence. Novelty of a legal question is not a basis for finding substantial justification. Judge Claire continued:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Although <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1949032758167197474&hl=en&as_sdt=2006"><i>Buck v. Berryhill</i></a> had been decided before this case was filed, neither party referenced it in their briefing, presumably because they were either unaware of the case or believed it did not apply to the facts presented in this case.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Attorneys on both sides of the case have an ethical responsibility to cite to the court the controlling authority. For the plaintiff's attorney, a failure might fall below the standard of care. For the government attorney, the agency acted without substantial justification because the conduct violated the duty of candor owed to the court. Judge Claire continued:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Further, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged an extension of Buck to the circumstances of this case, in which plaintiff did not raise the job availability discrepancy to the ALJ, writing "We recognize that the claimant in Buck submitted his estimated job numbers to the ALJ, and that White submitted his estimated job numbers to the Appeals Council. This distinction is not fatal."</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The problem for this analysis, even if factually correct, is that it does not matter. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17515041335570021951&q=sims+v+apfel&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Sims v. Apfel</a> erased the AC issue exhaustion because it is an inquisitorial process. Three justices rely on that proposition in the concurrence in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9697366307942206625&q=carr+v.+saul&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank"><i>Carr v. Saul</i></a>. The controlling precedent in the Ninth Circuit is "or" in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3810131149027001291&q=meanel+v+apfel&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Meanel v. Apfel</a>. </i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5244434700220563056&q=shaibi+v+berryhill&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank"><i>Shaibi v. Berryhill</i></a> states a best practice but permits submitting evidence to the AC. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"> In response, White raised three defenses to the COSS showing of substantial justification:</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">(1) the software producing more accurate job numbers was available at the initial ALJ determination level and the Commissioner advanced a false narrative while having ready access to more accurate numbers, </span></blockquote><p></p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">That's right. The ALJ corps has Job Browser Pro on their desks. They also have the DOT. But they don't use them, at least not most or even a healthy plurality of ALJs perform the SSR 00-4p check much less check the sources cited. And the Ninth Circuit held that the Job Browser Pro evidence was probative because it contradicted the testimony of the vocational expert witness. </span><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">(2) the court of appeals held that the rebuttal evidence presented to the Appeals Counsel was significant, probative, and reasonably likely to change the outcome of the disability determination, yet the Appeals Counsel upheld the ALJ, and </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">That is the holding of the panel. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">(3) the Commissioner's own vocational expert witness made false statements about job availability, and this misconduct cannot be substantially justified. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The agency and the courts continue to embarrass themselves and hold the system to shame for accepting and excusing vocational witness prevarication. Justice Gorsuch wrote in his dissent in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13456111747385625464&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Biestek</a> </i>that false testimony cannot be substantial evidence whereas the majority affirmed the nonsensical proposition that nut sorter represented a significant number of jobs. No serious person really believes the nonsense that the witness testified to in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2446309032964172585&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank"><i>Biestek</i></a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The <a href="https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/memoranda/">majority</a> in the EAJA appeal rejected the COSS defense and reversed the district court. The agency must clarity and develop the record when there is a vast difference in job numbers. The majority focused on the position of the government as a whole, not isolated aspects. The bottom line advanced by the COSS was that the agency should always be allowed to rely on the vocational witness because they have talismanic insight into the existence, requirements, and numbers of jobs. The majority held that the single sentence in the COSS answering brief that contended that the submission to the AC was reasonable and sufficient to raise a barrier of substantial justification. The majority disagreed. Circuit precedent clearly permits submission of evidence to the AC. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Judge Miller dissented. He would hold that the COSS was reasonable -- substantially justified. What Judge Miller does not address is <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1933202950419369854&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Brewes</a></i>. And that it fatal to his dissent. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">If I represented the COSS, which I don't, I would have argued <i>Ford v. Saul</i>. There, the Court held that rebuttal vocational evidence was subject to the five-day rule and the untimely request for a subpoena was too little too late. <i>Ford </i>is wrong for several reasons but we can discuss that another day. And I suggested that with my see comment in the year rundown. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Kudos John Metsker on the merits and on the fee appeal. Well done. </span></p><p><br /></p><p>___________________________</p><p></p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>An Update on White v. Kiajakzi -- 2023 EAJA</i>, California Social Security Attorney (December 7, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></p></div><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><i></i></span></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-38420473451624830622023-11-17T07:07:00.000-08:002023-11-17T07:07:13.901-08:00Not Severe Is a Finding of an Unambiguous Showing of Minimal Limitations -- Glanden v. Kijakazi<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"> The Ninth Circuit published <i><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/11/16/22-35632.pdf" target="_blank">Glanden v. Kijakazi</a> </i>on November 16, 2023. Judge Paez wrote the decision joined by Judge Gould. Judge Graber dissented. Glanden sought disability insurance benefits based on an alleged onset date of December 1, 2017, and date last insured of June 30, 2018. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">In the course of practice, representatives are often tasked with the job of proving disability in a small window. This is one of those cases, a small window. As for this claim, the ALJ terminated the five-step inquiry at step two, the absence of a severe impairment. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Glanden had a two-and-a-half-year gap in this receipt of medical treatment. In the middle of that two-and-a-half-year gap falls the narrow window, the seven months during which Glanden had the burden of proving that he met the disability requirements of the Social Security Act. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Court decision describes the medical expert as testifying that the record as a whole leads to an expectation that Glanden had symptoms serious enough to require treatment in those seven months. That description must entail an equal inference that Glanden's symptoms requiring treatment would continue after the date last insured and up to not more than 12 months prior to the date of application. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Court relies on <i>Edlund v. Massanari</i>, 253 F.3d 1152
(9th Cir. 2001); <i>Webb v. Barnhart</i>, 433 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.
2005), as the basis for reversing and remanding. The Court distinguishes <i>Ukolov v. Barnhart</i>, 420 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2005), the precedential case supporting the ALJ's finding of no severe impairments.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Judge Graber focuses on drug-seeking behavior. The presence of drug-seeking behavior does not prove or disprove the presence of severe physical or mental impairments. Judge Graber distinguishes <i>Webb</i> as not supporting the complete absence of medical evidence. Judge Grager describes the resort to wrist surgery prior to December 2017 and the absence of wrist complaints in 2019. Judge Graber also points to the resort to treatment for Glanden's back condition in 2019 after two separate traumas. One of those traumas consisted of an injury while engaged in yard work. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The treatment notes for the 2019 yard-work injury described Glanden as stable before that incident. The medical expert set up a syllogism: "if that's correct then during the relevant period he wasn't all that symptomatic." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The medical expert punted according to the majority and the dissent. "Wasn't all that symptomatic" does not mean asymptomatic. Serious symptoms are inconsistent with not "all that symptomatic."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">And that is the problem. The ALJ adduces an ambiguity and instead of resolving it and demanding the expert give an opinion, the ALJ determines to resolve the ambiguity against the claimant. The representative at the hearing does not jump in and explore that ambiguity either hoping that the ALJ will go with the serious symptoms instead of the not all that symptomatic syllogism. Neither is the right approach. In the context of administrative hearings where no one knows what the experts will say before the hearing, the inquisitor ALJ and the retained representative must ask questions that they do not know the answer to. This is unless the ALJ announces the direction of the decision. The ALJ must develop the record for the claimant even if the claimant has professional representation. The representative must never trust the ALJ to develop the record for the client or to adopt a pro-claimant mindset in administering a safety-net social program. The Court rightly put the onus on the ALJ to do more. Some judges in the Ninth Circuit would have blamed the representative and voted with Judge Graber. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><i>Glanden</i> is now precedent -- or will be 45 days after the publication of the decision. As for the gap in treatment scenario, consider <i>Glanden</i> fact specific. Glanden put up the bookends of treatment before and after the long period of no treatment and the medical expert testified to an expectation of serious symptoms. On those facts, <i>Glanden </i>is replicable. I expect those facts to represent the furthest reach of the inference with no treatment on the nonfrivolous legal conclusion at step two. The problem is establishing a listing or residual functional capacity, both burdens on the claimant. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><i>Glanden</i> will prove useful in other treatment gap cases. Counsel should cite <i>Glanden</i> in response to a gap in treatment as requiring the ALJ to interpolate consistency between two data points absent evidence to suggest a parabola instead of a straight line. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The first sentence of the last paragraph illustrates Glanden's problems on remand:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">We express no view as to whether Glanden will succeed
in proving that he is entitled to benefits; we hold only that
denial at step two was premature. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Whether Glanden can prevail on remand with a burden of proving up a residual functional capacity remains to be seen. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Anticipation ...</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Not Severe Is a Finding of an Unambiguous Showing of Minimal Limitations -- Glanden v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (November 17, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></p></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-20828492939100653212023-11-14T05:52:00.000-08:002023-11-14T05:53:17.223-08:00SkillTRAN's Comprehensive List of Sedentary Unskilled Simple Occupations -- And the Number of Jobs<p>SkillTRAN publishes a list of <a href="https://skilltran.com/pubs/SkillTRAN-DOT-EstimateReport.pdf" target="_blank">127 sedentary unskilled occupations that qualify as simple, repetitive. or routine work</a> (reasoning levels 1 and 2). We have discussed this issue in the <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2023/09/vocational-expert-handbook-video.html" target="_blank">past</a>. SkillTRAN estimates these job numbers as of May 3, 2021. That is not the publication date for the article, is the release date of the OES (now OEWS) data on May 3, 2021, for data as of May 2020. </p><p>SkillTRAN estimates that there are 58,000 full-time jobs that are sedentary, unskilled, and SRT using the SkillTRAN methodology for estimating job numbers. Sounds significant, but do all those jobs count according to SkillTRAN?</p><p>The most numerous occupation accounting for almost 34,000 jobs is escort-vehicle driver (DOT 919.663-022). SkillTRAN does not describe the DOT as accurate or reliable for <a href="https://skilltran.com/index.php/support-area/documentation/266-escort-vehicle-driver" target="_blank">escort-vehicle driver as sedentary</a>. </p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Escort-vehicle driver requires eye-hand coordination level 3 (the average range, inconsistent with unskilled work). </li><li>Escort-vehicle driver requires constant exertion of negligible force (inconsistent with frequent exertion of negligible force for sedentary work but consistent with light work). </li><li>Escort-vehicle driver could require the rapid application of greater than 20 pounds of force on the brake pedal (inconsistent with sedentary and light work but consistent with medium work). </li></ol><p></p><p>If Job Browser Pro or any other SkillTRAN product describes the existence of work, this article addressing escort-vehicle driver in an inconsistent statement. If the vocational witness identifies escort-vehicle driver without using a SkillTRAN product, then careful examination needs to focus on the eye-hand coordination, the constant exertion of negligible force, and the occasional (from seldom to one-third of the day) application of greater than 20 pounds of force. Some vocational witnesses will voluntarily withdraw escort-vehicle driver, and they should. </p><p>The second and third most numerous occupations on the list are addresser (DOT 209.587-010) and tube operator (DOT 239.687-014). These represent less than 2,400 and 2,300 jobs respectively. In a <a href="https://skilltran.com/pubs/SkillTRAN_SSA-ALJ_20151209.pdf" target="_blank">2015 presentation at an ALJ Training</a>, SkillTRAN laid out the problem with addresser -- it is hard to find. <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/oidap/Documents/PRESENTATION--TRAPANI%20AND%20HARKIN--OIDAP%2005-04-11.pdf" target="_blank">OIDAP calls that obsolete</a>. On the OIDAP list of obsolete occupations, we find tube operator. The second and third most numerous occupations that fit the unskilled sedentary SRT hypothetical are obsolete. The ALJ training also labeled escort-vehicle driver as "not really sedentary." </p><p>**SkillTRAN lists document preparer, election clerk, call-out operator, and surveillance-system monitor on its list of examples of sedentary unskilled occupations. These four occupations require reasoning level 3. SkillTRAN criticizes all six targets of vocational identification as the result of "rehabbers/occupational health." **</p><p>The first three occupations should not count. The count stands at fewer than 20,000 jobs. </p><p>The next most numerous occupation is nut sorter (DOT 521.687-086). The 2021 estimate of job numbers comes in at a paltry 1,900 jobs. You may remember that the vocational expert in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13456111747385625464&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank"><i>Biestek v. Berryhill</i>, 139 S.Ct. 1148 (2019)</a> testified under oath that her undisclosed personal labor market survey found 120,000 sorter jobs in the nation. The vocational witness in <i>Biestek</i> was at best unreasonably wrong. No one believes that nut sorter represents 120,000 jobs. This juxtaposition illustrates the depth of the vocational witness problem in Social Security disability cases. </p><p>Ten DOT codes report no jobs. Ten DOT codes report 10 or fewer jobs. Thirty-four DOT codes report between 12 and 20 jobs. Twelve DOT codes report between 21 and 30 jobs. Twenty-five DOT codes report between 31 and 100 jobs. Twenty-eight DOT codes report between 101 and 1,000 jobs. Six DOT codes, including nut sorter, report more than 1,000 but fewer than 2,000 jobs. </p><p>Every claimant limited to sedentary SRT work at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process should win. There are not a significant number of jobs in the national economy that reliably exist. Adding in the most insignificant additional limitation (occasional contact with others, limiting sitting to six hours) solidifies the conclusion. Don't let vocational witnesses spread the <i>Biestek</i> lie. </p><p>But you had me at sedentary SRT. </p><p><br /></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>SkillTRAN's Comprehensive List of Sedentary Unskilled Simple Occupations -- And the Number of Jobs</i>, California Social Security Attorney (November 14, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></p></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-82598221541466952512023-11-13T07:17:00.000-08:002023-11-14T05:53:03.692-08:00SkillTRAN's Analysis of Sedentary and Light Occupations<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Our friends at SkillTRAN publish an <i><a href="https://skilltran.com/online/unskilledfreqs.htm" target="_blank">Analysis of the Unskilled DOT Occupations (SVP < 3)</a>. </i>Representatives should commit it to memory or keep a copy on their desk/in their briefcase. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The page provides cumulative totals for a residual functional capacity for not present, occasional, frequent, and constant action. Constant represents no limitation and always represents 100% of jobs. The cumulative totals work across the exertion spectrum with the medium column including light and sedentary jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The categories are clear except DE:</span></p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">1. RE = reaching</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">2. HA = handling</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">3. FI = fingering</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">4. DE = not clear</span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">5. ST = stooping</span></li></ol><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">I will request that Jeff Truthan clarify the DE designation. It is not a <i>Selected Characteristic of Occupations </i>designation. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">This compilation of SCO data exposes problems with the Social Security Rulings. SSR 96-9p states that the inability to engage in stooping significantly impacts the sedentary occupational base. The SOC states that 95.6% of sedentary occupations require no stooping. SSR 85-15 states that the inability to engage in frequent stooping significantly impacts the medium range of work. The SCO classifies 329 occupations as requiring frequent stooping and 5 occupations as requiring constant stooping. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">SSR 96-9p states that sedentary work requires good use of the hands. The SCO identifies 92 occupations that require frequent reaching and handling as well as 75 that require frequent fingering. The SCO identifies 3 sedentary occupations that require occasional or no handling and 38 occupations that require occasional or no fingering. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">As to agency policy, the rulings are not true in all circumstances. SkillTRAN identifies occupations where the rulings suggest few jobs. Notice the difference in nomenclature. Occupations do not necessarily imply the existence of a "significant number of jobs." </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">This information is foundational information. Without the foundation, representatives will get lost chasing non-issues. </span></p><p><br /></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>SkillTRAN's Analysis of Sedentary and Light Occupations</i>, California Social Security Attorney (November 13, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></p></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-41197066950387925742023-10-30T16:14:00.001-07:002023-10-30T16:14:12.131-07:00Breaks and Meals in the Context of Aggregate Sitting, Standing, and Walking<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Vocational witness testifies at a hearing in response to the question, "if the person were limited to a total of six hours of standing/walking during a workday, could that person perform this occupation?" Vocational witness responds, "no." The ALJ asks for clarification mostly because it is permissible to interrupt cross-examination with a line of questions. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The vocational witness explains that the occupation of marker is a stand/walk job all day long and that there is not an opportunity to sit during the workday. The witness then offers an absurd caveat to that explanation. </span></p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> </span><span> The worker gets two 15-minute breaks during the day and can sit down.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span><span> </span><span> The worker gets a 30-minute meal break and can sit down.</span></span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span><span><span> </span><span> Those three breaks total an hour a day. </span></span></span></span></li></ol><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Point number 1: a person is marking product as part of their job. The time for a 15-minute break has arrived. </span></div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">When does the break start? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Does it start when the person gets to the place to sit down or does the break start when the person walks away from the workstation? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">When does the break end? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Does it end when the person starts to walk back to the duty station or does the break end when the person gets back to the workstation?</span></li></ol><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">It is clear that the break begins and ends when the person stops working and starts to move away from the workstation. I am an expert in this question, I am an employer.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The marker is working diligently through the day and break time arrives. The clock starts running. The worker cannot drop straight down to the floor and sit. More time standing/walking is required. Whether headed to the restroom, the water fountain, or the locker, the worker must engage in more standing/walking. If the break lasts 15 minutes, the person will never get to sit for 15 minutes. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Lunch break presents a different problem. The marker is scheduled for a full-time, eight-hour workday. The person clocks in at 8:30 am. The meal break arrives. What does the worker do? Certainly, the worker does not reach into a pocket, pull out a meal and drop straight down in the position to eat and rest for 30-minutes. The worker clocks out. The worker walks to the break area, retrieves the meal, and consumes the meal. The worker then clocks back in and walks back to the workstation. Even if the worker managed to sit for the entire 30-minute meal break, which is off-the-clock and not part of the work duties. If the meal break started at 12:30 pm, it ended at 1:00 pm, and the worker still has four hours of standing/walking on the clock. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">A person with a job that stands/walks over six hours in a day cannot accumulate one hour of sitting during two fifteen-minute breaks and a 30-minute meal. The worker must get to the designated area by walking, the person is off-the-clock for lunch, and the person must get back to work. <br /></span><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Breaks and Meals in the Context of Aggregate Sitting, Standing, and Walking</i>, California Social Security Attorney (October 30, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></p></div></div><p></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-87033547960201707522023-10-23T06:44:00.006-07:002023-10-24T06:59:49.604-07:00Why Doesn't the Social Security Administration Use the O*NET? <p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Department of Labor replaced the <i>Dictionary of Occupational Titles</i> with the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) with a <a href="https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/1999/Spring/art01.pdf" target="_blank">preliminary version in 1997</a>. Labor now publishes <a href="https://www.onetcenter.org/database.html#individual-files" target="_blank">version 28</a> of the O*NET. The Department of Labor continues to host the DOT with a <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/topics/libraries/LIBDOT" target="_blank">front-page statement</a>:</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b>Status of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; use in Social Security disability adjudications<br /></b><br />The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) was created under the sponsorship by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and was last updated in 1991. The DOT was replaced by the O*Net, and ETA no longer supports the DOT.<br /><br />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. <b>Thus, if you are looking for current occupational information you should use the <a href="https://www.onetonline.org/">O*Net</a>.</b></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">In the decade-long journey toward and Occupational Information System, SSA explains in the <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/ois_project_faqs.html" target="_blank">first frequently asked question</a>:</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b>Why are you developing a new occupational information system (OIS)? Why can’t the Department of Labor (DOL) update the Dictionary of Occupational Tiles (DOT), or why can’t you use the Occupational Information Network (O*NET)?</b><br /><br />The Department of Labor (DOL) developed the DOT in the late 1930s to match jobseekers to jobs. For almost 50 years, the DOT has been our primary source for occupational information. The DOL discontinued updating the DOT in 1991, and replaced it in 1998 with another job placement tool, the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). We studied whether O*NET could take the DOT’s place in our disability adjudication process but found it does not describe the physical requirements of occupations at the level of detail needed for claims adjudication.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/oidap/Documents/COMPLETE%20FINAL--Findings%20Report%20OIDAP%20062810.pdf" target="_blank">OIDAP</a> observed that the O*NET differed in the assessment of work requirements:</span></p><blockquote><p><b><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">RFC/O*NET Comparison </span></b></p></blockquote><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">RFC: Lifting, standing, sitting,
pushing; postural limitations on
balancing, crouching, crawling </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">O*NET Work Context: Time spent
sitting, standing, climbing, walking,
etc. </span></li><li><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Anchors differ: RFC specific time
ranges vs. O*NET relative time </span></li></ul><p></p><p><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">If the only measure of work that matters is full-time work, the O*NET focus on relative time is truly irrelevant. More importantly, the DOT does not discuss the amount of sitting, standing, or walking in any exertional domain except for sedentary work. </span></span></p><p><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The OIDAP described the measures of RFC to the measure of environmental conditions in the O*NET. Like the environmental demands in the SCO, the O*NET describes exposure on a range. While RFC is defined by tolerance, Labor has always framed the issue as expected exposure. The same comparison of tolerances in RFC to the demands in the DOT and SCO compared to the O*NET applies. The later statement in the FAQ and the OIDAP observation about skill level remain the two issues that prevent application of the O*NET as the foundation of SSA's adjudication of disability. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">That the O*NET does not provide an adequate basis for assessing skill and exertion does not translate to the conclusion that the O*NET does not provide useful data for understanding current occupational information framed in the Work Context reports. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Representatives should not use SVP estimates because those estimates apply to a wide range of work. Representatives should not use the standing, walking, and running estimates to gauge the difference between light, medium, and heavy work. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Representatives should use the O*NET to assess the required need for contact or interaction with other people, dealing with the public, and teamwork. Representatives should use the O*NET to separate out part-time versus full-time work. Representatives can use the O*NET to narrow the range of sedentary work. It is clear (to me) that the O*NET meets the definition of reliable government publications subject to administrative notice under 20 CFR 404.1566(d). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The DOT contains almost 13,000 codes. The DOT has a date last updated of 1977 for 10,000 codes. The use of 46-year-old data is not reliable and does not satisfy the reasonable mind test. Recognizing the limitations of the O*NET does not justify reverting back to the DOT and pretending that it covers the data points not contemplated in 1977. </span></p><p><b style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">"Thus, if you are looking for current occupational information you should use the <a href="https://www.onetonline.org/">O*Net</a>.</b><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><b>"</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><b><br /></b></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Why Doesn't the Social Security Administration Use the O*NET?</i>, California Social Security Attorney (October 18, 2023)<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.</p><div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></p></div><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #212121; font-family: "Source Sans Pro Web", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px;"><span style="box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: bolder;"></span></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-44548426836032952142023-10-18T04:24:00.009-07:002023-10-23T06:45:13.924-07:00Another Missed Opportunity -- Superficial and Brief Contact with Coworkers in Shawver v. Kijakazi<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">We are back in </span><a href="https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/4055864978674629198/1780377879768226808" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><i><span style="color: blue; line-height: 17.12px;">Shawver v. Kijakazi</span></i></a> <span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">looking</span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> at the limitations to superficial and brief contact with coworkers. We return to the district court decision in </span><a href="https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/4055864978674629198/1780377879768226808" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><i><span style="color: blue;">Misti Jo. S. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> for the residual functional capacity and occupations. In relevant part:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand/walk for up to 4 hours a day with ordinary breaks [...] The claimant is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks with occasional detailed work, only ordinary production requirement, and superficial and brief contact with coworkers and general public.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Resulting in: </span></p><p></p><p><span><span style="background-color: #fff9ee; color: #222222; font-size: 15.4px;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Routing Clerk, a Mail Routing Clerk, and a Marking Clerk.</span></span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">We discussed the limitation to </span><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2023/10/missed-opportunities-standing-and.html" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" target="_blank">standing/walking for four hours</a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> yesterday. That exercise eroded routing clerk and mail clerk while eliminating marker. Vocational cross is a no quarter expedition, we seek to eliminate all jobs. The more common version of this genre of limitation is <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2023/09/vocational-expert-handbook-video_6.html" target="_blank">occasional contact or interaction with others</a>. Superficial and brief is a separate classification having more to do with the quality of interaction, <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2023/08/since-hearings-are-conducted-in-english.html" target="_blank">teamwork</a>. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Superficial and brief contact with others is not a vocationally relevant phrase. A person can have constant superficial and brief contact, nothing is in depth. Because it is conceivable and not classified by the data, the vocational witness gets carte blanche to pontificate. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Routing clerk (</span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">222.687-022) is a shipping, receiving, and inventory clerks (SOC 43-5071) (shipping clerks) occupation. Shipping clerks have no or occasional contact with others in 0% of jobs according to the <a href="https://www.onetonline.org/link/custom/43-5071.00" target="_blank">O*NET</a>. A mere 1% do not coordinate or lead others. Dealing with external customers is "not important at all" in 4% of jobs. Never resolving conflict occurs in 16% of jobs. Working with a group or team is not important in 1% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Mail clerk (209.687-026) is a mail clerks and mail machine operators, except postal service (SOC 43-9051) (mail clerks) occupation. </span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Mail clerks </span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">have no or occasional contact with others in 8% of jobs according to the </span><a href="https://www.onetonline.org/link/custom/43-9051.00" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" target="_blank">O*NET</a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">. Coordinating or leading others is not important in 15% of jobs. Dealing with external customers is "not important at all" in 10% of jobs. Never resolving conflict occurs in 29% of jobs. Working with a group or team is not important in 0% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Marker (</span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">209.587-034) is a stockers and order fillers (SOC 53-7065) (stockers) occupation. </span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Stockers </span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">have no or occasional contact with others in 4% of jobs according to the </span><a href="https://www.onetonline.org/link/custom/53-7065.00" target="_blank">O*NET</a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">. Coordinating or leading others is not important in 6% of jobs. Dealing with external customers is "not important at all" in 6% of jobs. Never resolving conflict occurs in 29% of jobs. Working with a group or team is not important in 4% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">In order to make this type and quality of evidence probative, we have to ask. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"> 1. Is "contact with others (face-to-face, by telephone, or otherwise) in order to perform it" superficial and brief?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 2. </span></span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Is "</span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">coordinate or lead others in accomplishing work activities in this job</span><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">" supe</span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">rficial and brief?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 3. Is fairly important ability to "</span>work with external customers or the public" superficial and brief?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 4. Is the encounter of "conflict situations" on the job superficial and brief?</span><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span><span> 5. Is the ability to "work with others in a group or team" as fairly important superficial and brief?</span><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">It becomes a matter of extracting concessions from the witness. The follow up question is whether an occupation that required those five workplace requirements or expectations (BFOQ), would you agree that the work required more than superficial and brief contact with coworkers and the public?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">When we allow a vocational witness to wax on about the existence of work without exploring the range of available data, we allow the witness and ALJ to take from our clients the benefits that were promised in the Social Security Act. We become a party to a breach of the social contract. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Forge onward. </span></p><p><br /></p><p>___________________________</p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Another Missed Opportunity -- Superficial and Brief Contact with Coworkers in Shawver v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (October 18, 2023) <br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a><br /><br />The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<div><p><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><span style="background-color: white;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /></span><br style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";" /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png" style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></a><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></p></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-12108953869354665912023-10-17T05:51:00.001-07:002023-10-17T12:19:28.081-07:00Missed Opportunities -- Standing and Walking in Shawver v. Kijakazi<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span style="line-height: 107%;">In </span><span style="line-height: 107%;"><a href="https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/4055864978674629198/1780377879768226808"><i><span style="color: blue; line-height: 107%;">Shawver v. Kijakazi</span></i></a><span>, the claimant litigated the tried-and-true physician opinion evidence, the claimant testimony, the meeting or equaling of the listings, and the non-issue of whether the ALJ propounded a complete hypothetical question based on errors at step three, the assessment of residual functional capacity. </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span>But step five is always in play when the claimant
establishes the inability to perform past relevant work. </span><a href="https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/4055864978674629198/1780377879768226808"><i><span style="color: blue;">Misti Jo.
S. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.</span></i></a><span> gives us the rest of
the story. The RFC:</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand/walk for up to 4 hours a day with ordinary breaks; occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; occasionally climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; avoid exposure to hazardous machinery or equipment; and work in an environment with no more than ordinary office level lighting or noise. The claimant is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks with occasional detailed work, only ordinary production requirement, and superficial and brief contact with coworkers and general public.</span></blockquote><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">And the step five occupations:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">
</span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Routing Clerk, a Mail Routing Clerk, and a Marking Clerk.</span></blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Standing/walking four hours in an eight-hour day does not represent a wide range of light work. Social Security Ruling 83-10 describes light work as requiring standing/walking six hours in an eight-hour day and sitting intermittently during the remaining time. There exists an apparent conflict between the agency's understanding of light work and the identification of light work that requires not more than four hours of standing/walking. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Routing clerk (DOT 209.687-026) is a shipping, receiving, and inventory clerks (SOC 43-5071) (shipping clerks) occupation. Labor places 65 alternate titles including 20 DOT codes in this group. The Occupational Requirements Survey describes shipping clerks. Shipping clerks stand (including walk) half the day at the 25th percentile and 80% of the day at the 50th percentile (median). Shipping clerks engage in sedentary exertion in 7.5% of jobs and light exertion in 21.5% of jobs. Shipping clerks engage in unskilled work (SVP 2) in 46.3% of jobs. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="line-height: 107%;"><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Mail clerk (DOT 222.687-022) is a mail clerks and mail machine operators, except postal service (SOC 43-9051) (mail clerks) occupation. Labor places 60 alternate titles including 14 DOT codes in this group. The Occupational Requirements Survey describes mail clerks. Mail clerks stand (including walk) half the day at the 50th percentile and 75% of the day at the 75th percentile. Mail clerks lift/carry 20 pounds maximum in at the 25th percentile and 25 pounds at the 50th percentile. Mail clerks engage in unskilled work (SVP 2) in 67.4% of jobs. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Marker (DOT 209.587-034) is a stockers and order fillers (SOC 53-7065) (stockers) occupation. Labor places 209 alternate titles including 38 DOT codes in this group. The Occupational Requirements Survey describes stockers. Stockers stand (including walk) 80% of the day at the 10th percentile. Stockers lift/carry 25 pounds maximum in at the 10th percentile. Stockers engage in unskilled work (SVP 1 or 2) in 84.3% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">To arrive at a reliable estimate of the number of light and unskilled work with standing/walking limited to four hours per day, a witness would have to assume the incidence of work that meets those criteria. The ORS and O*NET OnLine provides governmental data published according to OMB standards. The vocational witness has local (anecdotal) experience without a well-accepted methodology for extrapolating that experience to the national economy. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">In the case of these three occupations, markers are clearly eliminated. The intersection of unskilled and standing/walking four hours or less without crossing into sedentary work requires several assumptions. The expert must either assume that the exertional demands cut across the skill requirements OR must either have data or make assumptions about the requirements of skill and exertion correlation. Labor does not publish that data. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Contact/interaction with coworkers and supervisors is cued up next. Teasing, none of the jobs make the cut. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Missed Opportunities -- Standing and Walking in Shawver v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (October 17, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-17803778797682268082023-10-16T07:01:00.007-07:002023-10-16T07:03:06.439-07:00Step Five Is Not a Chance to Relitigate Step Three -- Shawver v. Kijakazi<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">In Social Security disability cases in
federal court, the issues fall into predictable patterns. We examine what is
not a separate issue in the context of <i><a href="https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/4055864978674629198/1780377879768226808" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Shawver v. Kijakazi</span></a></i>.
The issues addressed and rejected by the Court of Appeals:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> 1. In a pre-March 27,
2017, application for benefits, the ALJ must state specific and legitimate
reasons for rejecting the opinions of treating and examining physicians that
are otherwise contradicted in the record. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> 2. The ALJ must state
clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant's testimony about the
symptoms and limitations from the impairments established at step two of the
sequential evaluation process. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> 3. The ALJ must state
reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the conclusion that the
claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or equal a
listed impairment. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> 4. Where the ALJ
properly assesses the residual functional capacity at step three of the
sequential evaluation process and propounds that RFC to the vocational witness
the ALJ has no obligation to inquire about other limitations. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style", serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">The fourth issue is not an issue. It
is never an issue. What the person submitted as a fourth issue is an argument
for materiality of issues 1 and 2. The ALJ did not state legally adequate
reasons for rejecting the physician opinion evidence or the claimant's
testimony and those limitations were not included in the RFC or question to the
vocational witness. The error is material. The question to the vocational
expert, or the lack of the right question to the vocational expert, proves that
the error in RFC assessment makes a difference in the outcome of the
case. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style; font-size: medium;">When does the issue that the vocational witness did not respond to a complete hypothetical constitute a separate issue? When the ALJ's question does not match the ALJ's RFC finding. That scenario constitutes a separate issue from any issue presented at the second half of step three, the assessment of RFC. This issue arose in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7783393703254651279&q=Leach+v.+Kijakazi&hl=en&as_sdt=4,114,129" target="_blank">Leach v. Kijakazi</a>. </i>The ALJ asked the witness to assume occasional changes but found that the claimant could tolerate few changes. Changes up to a third of the workday could amount to more than few. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style; font-size: medium;">Save the incomplete hypothetical issue for fact patterns calling for that treatment. Use the incomplete hypothetical as a materiality argument when the RFC assessment is based on legal error or lacks the support of substantial evidence. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Step Five Is Not a Chance to Relitigate Step Three -- Shawver v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (October 16, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> </span> </p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-70622943659794058742023-10-12T10:33:00.002-07:002023-10-13T04:41:31.013-07:00A Disagreement from the Denial of Rehearing En Banc -- Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland<p><i>Rodriguez Diaz v.
Garland</i>, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022) is an immigration case concerning a bond hearing during a prolonged detention. Judge Wardlaw dissented arguing that the majority opinion misapplied circuit precedent. Rodriguez filed for rehearing or rehearing en banc. And the drama begins. </p><p>The short story explains that <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/10/12/20-16245.pdf" target="_blank">the Court denied rehearing and rehearing en banc</a>. Judge Wardlaw voted to rehear the case by the panel and en banc. Judge Paez disagreed with the vote to deny en banc and issued an opinion to that effect. The first interesting point is that Judge Paez "disagreed" and did not dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. I don't think that the Ninth Circuit is getting away from the labels of <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-rehearing-and-en-banc-processes.html" target="_blank">dissental and concurral</a>. </p><p>The judges disagreeing with the order denying rehearing <i>Rodriguez Diaz </i>en banc:</p>PAEZ, <br />MURGUIA, Chief Judge,<br />WARDLAW, <br />GOULD, <br />BERZON, <br />KOH, <br />SUNG, <br />SANCHEZ, <br />H.A. THOMAS, <br />MENDOZA, and <br />DESAI<div><br /></div><div>Judge Paez and Judge Berzon took senior status. They actually don't get a vote on what cases get reheard en banc. They have simple disagreement, hence the lack of a dissental. That leaves nine judges with a vote that joined in the disagreement. There are 28 sitting active judges on the Ninth Circuit. Former Judge Watford's seat has a <a href="https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/district/vacancies/judicial-vacancies-and-nominations/" target="_blank">nomination pending before the Senate</a>. To get the case reheard en hanc, a majority of non-recused judges must vote to grant the petition. <br /><br />Judge Paez in his disagreement and Judge Wardlaw in her dissenting opinion make a strong case that the Court now has conflicting precedent. As a closet libertarian, I hoped that this kind of due process issue would garner greater attention from both sides of the aisle. None of the Trump appointees nor the remaining Bush appointees voted to rehear the case. Eight Obama and Biden appointees are also absent from the disagreement list. <br /><br />The en banc process is closeted in judicial secrecy. We cannot discern whether any other judges also disagreed, only that they did not publicly join the disagreement. But I did unravel for myself why Judge Paez wrote a disagreement rather than a dissental.</div><div><br /></div><div>Figured out one thing today. </div><div><br /></div><div><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>A Disagreement from the Denial of Rehearing En Banc -- Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland</i> California Social Security Attorney (October 12, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> </span> </p><br /></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-4065497756965291502023-10-05T06:50:00.001-07:002023-10-05T06:50:19.693-07:00Reasonable Explanations for Conflicts (or Apparent Conflicts) in Occupational Information -- Apparent Does Not Mean "Obvious"<span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">What is an "apparent conflict" as described in <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR2000-04-di-02.html">Social Security Ruling 00-4p</a>? The presence of a conflict or apparent conflict is one of the <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/AC08_Top_10_CR.html">10 most common grounds for remanding</a> cases from the federal courts to the Social Security Administration for a new hearing in 2018-2020. Given the unsupported nature of vocational witness testimony, the ranking should be higher.</span><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The ruling uses the expression conflicts and the parenthetical or apparent conflicts. This establishes that apparent conflicts represent a different range of tension between the testimony and the DOT as compared to plain conflict. The question is what does "apparent conflict" mean in this context. The adjective "apparent" is the key. <i>Merriam Webster </i>offers five definitions of "<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparent" target="_blank">apparent</a>:"</span></div><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"> 1 : open to view : <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visible">VISIBLE</a><br /><span> </span>The changes were readily apparent.<br /><br />2 : clear or <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifest#h1">manifest</a> to the understanding<br /><span> </span>for reasons that are apparent</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind<br /><span> </span>was in apparent danger</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">4 : <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manifest#h1">manifest</a> to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid <br /><span> </span>died of an apparent heart attack<br /><span> </span>The air of spontaneity is perhaps more apparent than real.—J. R. Sutherland<br /></span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">5 <b>law</b> : having an <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indefeasible">indefeasible</a> right to succeed to a title or estate</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The first definition gives the example "readily apparent." Open to view or visible, with the example, implies obviousness. If the instruction is to resolve "conflict (or obvious conflict)" then the parenthetical expression with the disjunctive "or" makes little sense. "Apparent" cannot mean "obvious" in this context because it is either redundant or offers a disjunctive and more restrictive option. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The same problem applies to the use of clear or manifest. The "or" statement is more restrictive than the original use of unmodified "conflict." The fifth definition does not fit the context presented.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The third and fourth definitions of "apparent" add an alternative. "Appearing as actual to the eye or mind" and "manifest to the senses or mind ... that may or may be factually valid" put in a different concept -- the perceived conflict might be wrong. An apparent danger does not require a true threat to person or property. An apparent conflict does not imply that a myocardial infarct occurred. Those expressions require reasonable perception but not a probability or certainty of that perception. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/public_experts/Vocational_Experts_(VE)_Handbook-508.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Vocational Expert Handbook </i>(SSA 2023)</a> reinforces the presence of a reasonable perception of conflict as the correct construct of "apparent conflict." The VE Handbook (p. 40, n.50) describes the reasoning level 3 issue:</span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">An occupation with reasoning level 3 requires individuals to “[a]pply commonsense
understanding to carry out instructions furnished in written, oral, or diagrammatic form.
Deal with problems involving several concrete variables in or from standardized situations.”
It could be argued that occupations requiring reasoning level 3 are too complex for an
individual limited to “simple” or “repetitive” tasks. Therefore, an apparent conflict exists.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">And there it is. An apparent conflict exists because it could be argued. The proposition that a claimant could reasonably argue a conflict between the DOT and the testimony establishes an apparent conflict. Cases that suggest or hint that an apparent conflict means one that is open, obvious, or so patent that the ALJ could easily discern the presence of a conflict are <i>wrong</i>. Those cases reduce the expression "conflicts (or apparent conflicts)" as redundant or constricted by the disjunctive parenthetical expression. Any reasonable identification of an arguable conflict fits with the plain language of the ruling understood through the lens of dictionary and exemplified by the published VE Handbook places the burden on the ALJ to resolve that conflict <i>sua sponte</i> whether the representative is a potted plant or shouting from the mountain tops. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Drop the mic. </span></p><p><br /></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Reasonable Explanations for Conflicts (or Apparent Conflicts) in Occupational Information -- Apparent Does Not Mean "Obvious"</i>, California Social Security Attorney (October 5, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" style="cursor: move;" /></a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> </span> </p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-65575112486034219442023-09-28T06:18:00.003-07:002023-09-28T06:18:23.107-07:00Brown v. Arizona -- The Scope of En Banc Review and Resuscitating Waived or Forfeited Issues <p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><i><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/25/20-15568.pdf" target="_blank">Brown v. Arizona</a></i></span> <span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">rests on horrific facts. Bradford abused three women while a student at the University of Arizona. Brown brought an action seeking to impose liability on the university (state) for the abuse that she endured under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688. The District Court and the three-judge panel decision rules against Brown on the context, authority, and indifference elements (of five elements of the claim for relief) for imposing liability. The issue centers around the context element. Brown changed her theory before the en banc court. I write to discuss how and why the Court allowed Brown to change her theory of the case not advanced in the District Court and not advanced to the three-judge panel. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">From the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11721272257083216429&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">panel</a> decision, Brown argued that:</span></p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><blockquote>she does not have to show that the University controlled the context of her abuse, only that the University controlled the context in which it improperly failed to act, i.e., Bradford's assaults on [two other students]. </blockquote></span><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Judge Forrest, joined by Judge Nelson, described the dissent as rejecting Brown's theory. Judge W. Fletcher characterized the briefing: </span></p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><blockquote>Brown argues that because the University had control over the context of Bradford's assaults on Student A and DeGroote, it necessarily had control over the context of Bradford's subsequent assaults on other university students including Brown, regardless of where in the community the assaults took place.</blockquote><p>Judge Fletcher rejected that theory of the case and describes the facts supporting a different theory that satisfies the "context" element. Brown petitioned for en banc review. The majority of nonrecused judges voted to <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=765559211593591772&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">rehear the case en banc</a>. Ordinarily, the en banc panel rehears the case without further briefing. It is clear that on the theory pressed in the District Court and before the three-judge panel that Brown loses. No judge accepted her "context" theory of the case. Brown asks for and the Court grants the opportunity to submit further briefing. </p><p>On en banc review, Brown wins 8-3. Judge Forrest wrote the panel majority decision but was not on the en banc panel. Judge Fletcher writes the majority opinion. Judge Nelson, Judge Rawlinson, and Judge Lee write separate dissents. Judge Friedland responds to the waiver argument raised by Judge Nelson and Judge Rawlinson. We start with Judge Nelson's dissent.</p><p>Judge Nelson describes Brown has having "expressly disclaimed that position below and before the three-judge panel on appeal." Judge Nelson worries that "the majority encourages future plaintiffs to hed the ball on their arguments for strategic litigation advantage." As a practitioner before the Court of Appeals, I want to go on record and assure Judge Nelson and the rest of the Court that plaintiffs and appellants actually try to make the best attempt to frame the issues and theories. That attempt does not bind the courts to doing something that is different. For instance, in the seminal <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4671607337309792720&q=Thompkins+v.+eerie&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins</a></i>, no party advocated the proposition adopted -- that the federal courts adopt and apply state court decisions construing the common law in a diversity action. The courts have a responsibility to articulate the law correctly even when the parties have chased the wrong rabbit down the wrong hole. <br /></p><p>Judge Friedland says that in her concurrence. Judge Friedland posits that if the panel had rejected Brown's claim on the theory pressed in an unpublished memorandum decision, the case would have died. Because the panel published the opinion and discussed the law of "context" at length in both the majority and dissenting opinions, "it is crucial that we get the law right." </p><p>Judge Rawlinson expresses the vigorous and rigorous adherence to the twin pillars of waiver and forfeiture. Citing <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11267774423786459037&q=Hamer+v.+Neighborhood+Hous.+Servs.+of+Chi&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.</a>:</p><blockquote>Waiver is the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” <i>Id</i>. (citation omitted). Forfeiture is the “failure to make the timely assertion of a right.” <i>Id.</i> </blockquote><p>Waived issues are not reviewable. Forfeited issues are reviewed for plain error. Judge Rawlinson characterizes the disclaimed issue as one of forfeiture by the majority. Judge Rawlinson argues that no case allows the courts to review an argument "affirmatively disclaimed by a party." Judge Rawlinson would instead treat the disclaiming of a theory as one of waiver barring review of that issue. </p><p>Judge Friedland responds that the Court cannot permit a published opinion to incorrectly state the law. Published opinions constitute precedent. It is the obligation of the en banc court to ensure that the body of precedent correctly states the law. </p><p>The Court let Brown off the hook. The case presents compelling facts that cry for relief. Shifting theories from the district court to the court of appeals will almost always result in a complete and total loss. That does not mean that the opening brief in the court of appeals should not address the holding of the district court, it should. But now, <i>Brown </i>is undeniably the law of the circuit not only on Title IX but on the procedural ability under the right facts to shift the theory of the case and pray for the court's discretion.</p><p>Not planning on trying this, intentionally.</p><p><br /></p></span><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Brown v. Arizona -- The Scope of En Banc Review and Resuscitating Waived or Forfeited Issues </i>, California Social Security Attorney (September 28, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /></p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> </span> </p><p><br /></p></span>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-9389562559361760292023-09-20T04:26:00.008-07:002023-09-20T04:26:58.371-07:00An Unsuccessful Attack on the Job Browser Pro Methodology -- Warranted<span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, decided <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14957228316091793234&hl=en&as_sdt=2006">William B.U. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.</a> in May 2023. The issue is whether Mr. U could perform other light work with unstated "additional limitations." The vocational witness identified storage rental clerk (63,000 jobs), cafeteria attendant (29,000 jobs), and furniture rental clerk (58,000 jobs). The issue is that the attorney did not understand how Job Browser Pro works and the VW did not say. <br /><br />SkillTRAN publishes <a href="https://skilltran.com/index.php/products/pc-based-solutions/job-browser-pro">Job Browser Pro</a>. SkillTRAN explains its <a href="https://www.skilltran.com/pubs/DOTempnum_method.pdf">methodology</a>. Job Browser Pro's methodology is not unknown, indecipherable, or incomprehensible. Justice Souter, sitting by designation, squarely addressed the issue in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16835387066843320895&hl=en&as_sdt=2006">Purdy v. Berryhiill</a>, 887 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 2018). <br /><br />The question is not whether the VW should be able to regurgitate the published JBP methodology but instead whether any person representing claimants before the Social Security Administration should know the program better than the witness. The answer is "yes." The representative, attorney or not, should know the program better than the VW and better than the ALJ. If the representative does not know how job numbers get generated from JBP, the client will lose cases that the agency should have paid. The VW provides the evidence that allows the agency to wrongfully deny our clients' benefits.<br /><br />We addressed <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2022/05/storage-facility-rental-clerk-using.html">storage facility rental clerk</a> in May 2022. Of the 68,000 jobs currently attributed to storage facility rental clerk, 66,000 exist in the real estate subsector (NAICS 531000). Use of the real estate subsector has an apparent conflict with the purpose statement of the occupation: Leases storage space to customers of rental storage facility. SkillTRAN is not there to testify. Ask the VW to defend the use of that industry designation as opposed to the lessors of miniwarehouses and self-storage units (NAICS 531130), an industry representing about 3% of the real estate subsector. That is the issue.<br /><br /><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/11/common-light-unskilled-dot-codes.html" target="_blank">Cafeteria attendant</a> is one of those jobs that clearly does not permit sitting two hours per day. </span><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2019/11/furniture-rental-consultant-does-not.html" target="_blank">Furniture rental consultant</a> had (past tense intentional) a serious problem in JBP. Version 1.7.4.1 fixed the problem discussed in the linked blog. JBP now estimates 2,654 jobs in the nation. JBP fixed the inconsistent use of three and four-digit NAICS codes (the non-zero digits) to eliminate the double counting. See the linked blog. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">When the medical expert testifies, we know the medical evidence and point out the inconsistencies between the testimony and the written record. When the vocational expert testifies, we must know the vocational data and point out inconsistencies between teh data and the relatively static data from BLS and how JBP uses that data. If we want to represent our clients well and seek a just result, we do not have a choice. </span><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">We can do better.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>An Unsuccessful Attack on the Job Browser Pro Methodology -- Warranted</i>, California Social Security Attorney (September 20, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a></p></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-45382420325658110662023-09-16T05:35:00.002-07:002023-09-21T06:40:38.192-07:00The Court Genuflects to the Regulations -- Kitchen v. Kijakazi<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Ninth Circuit published <i><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/14/22-35581.pdf" target="_blank">Kitchen v. Kijakazi</a></i> on September 14, 2023. The Court disposed of five issues:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 1. </span><i>McCartey
v. Massanari</i>, 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding
that an ALJ is required to address the Veterans
Administration disability rating), is no longer good law.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 2. The ALJ decision complied with the clear and convincing standard for rejecting symptoms and limitation testimony.</span><br /></span></p><p><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 3. The ALJ complied with the articulation burden to reject opinion evidence. </span><br /></span></span></p><p><span><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 4. The ALJ decision adequately addressed the criteria for the mental listings. </span><br /></span></span></span></p><p><span><span><span><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><span> 5. The ALJ did not propound an incomplete hypothetical. </span><br /></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Kitchen is a veteran injured in the Iraq conflict. The VA awarded Kitchen a 70% rating for PTSD, 10% rating for synovitis, and 10% rating for limited knee motion. The VA does not add ratings together so 70 + 10 + 10 = 80. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Two doctors examined Kitchen. On orthopedic examination, Kitchen had normal knee motion. On psychological evaluation, Kitchen had either mild or marked limitations in the ability to interact with others. VA doctors described Kitchen as markedly to extremely limited in mental functions. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Kitchen filed three applications for benefits, all denied. Kitchen filed a fourth application in 2020 claiming disability based on PTSD, depression, anxiety, insomnia, headaches, and residuals of the right knee injury. A medical expert at the administrative hearing identified marked limitations in social function but that the mental residual functional capacity precluded public and close teamwork with other people but that he could tolerate supervision and his other areas of mental function were at or above the normal range.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The ALJ assessed Kitchen as retaining the residual functional capacity to perform light work, simple and routine tasks, no teamwork. The <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5747987263153826304&q=Jeremy+K.+v.+kijakazi&hl=en&as_sdt=4,156" target="_blank">District Court</a> quoted the mental RFC as: </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Regarding interaction with others, the claimant would work best in an environment in proximity to, but not close cooperation (i.e., teamwork), with co-workers and supervisors, and must work away from the public. The claimant does have the ability to interact appropriately with others.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">and, </span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Regarding the ability to adapt or manage; the claimant would work best in an environment that is routine and predictable, with goals set by others, low stress, not production or quota based. The claimant does have the ability to respond appropriately, distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable work performance; or be aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The vocational witness described work for Kitchen's medical-vocational profile as a small product assembler, marker, or electronics worker. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The Court disposed of the issues in short and predictable order. The Court expressly gave last rites to <i>McCartey</i> based on the 2017 regulatory changes. <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3106505966128347647&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Woods v. Kijakazi</a></i>, 32 F.4th
785, 790 (9th Cir. 2022) holds that the law of the circuit no longer controls in light of the change in regulations. <i>Woods</i> cites <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9647600531419645075&q=lambert+v.+saul&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004" target="_blank">Lambert v. Saul</a></i>, 980 F.3d
1266, 1274 (9th Cir. 2020) for that proposition. <i>Kitchen </i>cites the Fourth Circuit decision in <i><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9817467865670876810&hl=en&as_sdt=2006" target="_blank">Rogers v. Kijakazi</a></i>, 62 F.4th 872, 879–
80 (4th Cir. 2023). </span></p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><i>Lambert </i>and <i>Rogers </i>have one overriding characteristic in common -- invocation of the deference doctrine in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9224020825253625133&q=lambert+v.+saul&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004"><i>Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs</i></a>,, 545 U.S. 967 (2005); <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14437597860792759765&q=lambert+v.+saul&hl=en&as_sdt=7ff87fe0000000000100000000000000004"><i>Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council</i></a>, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Brand X deference allows the agency to overturn settled law of the circuit by reinterpreting the statute. Congress gives the executive branch the power to do so. The grant of authority shields members of Congress from the ire of constituents. The grant of deference removes the power of the courts to say what the law is. Not advocating, just describing. <br /><br />The remaining issues fall by the wayside having jettisoned <i>McCartey</i>. So let us get to what should have been. The fifth issue is not an issue. The disconnect, if any, between a physician opinion or claimant testimony and the RFC/hypothetical question to the vocational witness is a materiality factor, not a separate issue. The rejection of the opinion or testimony is material because those limitations were not included. <br /><br />The District Court tells us that the mental RFC contained a production quota limitation in addition to the teamwork limitation. We must examine those issues but that examination is hampered by the lack of a DOT code for any of the three occupations cited. That being the case, I engage in the professional assumption game. <br /><br />Small products assembler I (DICOT 706.684-022) is a production workers occupation. The essential job function is to work at production pace. The DOT describes the occupation as "Frequently works at bench as member of assembly group assembling one or two specific parts and passing unit to another worker." On both the teamwork and production limitations, this occupation has an apparent conflict with the DOT requiring an explanation pursuant to <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR2000-04-di-02.html">SSR 0-4p</a>.<br /><br />Electronics worker (DICOT 726.687-010) is another production worker occupation. The DOT describes the summary function of the occupation as: "Performs any combination of following tasks to clean, trim, or prepare components or parts for assembly by other workers." This occupation requires production rate pace and teamwork and has the same apparent conflict with the DOT analyzed under SSR 00-4p.<br /><br />Marker (DICOT 209.587-034) is warehouse work, or to use the Department of Labor label, stockers and order fillers. The overwhelming majority of stockers and order fillers have constant contact (face to face, by telephone, or otherwise) with others per the O*NET. Over 90% of stockers and order fillers work with a group or team as important, very important, or extremely important per the O*NET. More importantly, stockers and order fillers engage in medium work per the ORS. <br /><br />We will lose on the deference doctrine. The odds are stacked against us. But we have other tools on our belts -- to eviscerate the vocational witnesses. They are making it up, it is not even close. For anyone to offer up small products assembler and electronics worker as not engaged in production rate pace and not involved in teamwork screams that the witness cannot be believed.</span><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Convince me otherwise.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>The Court Genuflects to the Regulations -- Kitchen v. Kijakazi</i>, California Social Security Attorney (September 16, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"> </span></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-88020040900796942062023-09-07T15:35:00.004-07:002023-10-14T05:31:39.973-07:00Temp to Hire and Temporary Help Services -- There Is a Difference and the Latter Does Not Count for Sustained Employment<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Could you please tell me how many of the jobs you identified for the occupation of small products assembler actually work in the temporary help services industry?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">That is the question. If the vocational witness uses Job Browser Pro, the program will answer the question (assuming the VW knows how JBP works). If the vocational witness is not using JBP, that person will give a blank stare, silence over the phone, or have to say that he/she just doesn't know. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The answer matters. For this example, looking at small products assembler I, the answer means the difference between significant and insignificant numbers of jobs. We start with the observations that small product assembler I falls in the production workers, all other (51-9199) classification. The <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm" target="_blank">Occupational Outlook Handbook</a> (2003) (and the <a href="https://data.bls.gov/projections/nationalMatrix?queryParams=51-9199&ioType=o" target="_blank">Employment Projections</a> upon which the OOH is based) describe production workers all other as representing 275,300 jobs in the nation in self-employment and wage and salary employment. The manufacturing sector employs 111,200 production workers. An additional 102,000 jobs work in the administrative and support and waste management and remediation services sector. Almost all of those jobs exist in administrative and support services subsector, 101,300 jobs. The employment services industry group employs 98,400 production workers. The temporary help services sector employs 90,400 of the 102,000 jobs in the administrative and support and waste management and remediation services sector. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes519199.htm" target="_blank">Occupational Employment and Wages</a> (2022) reports 252,660 production workers, all other jobs. The industry that employs the largest number of production workers is ... employment services at 99,840 jobs. Over a third of jobs for production workers exist in this industry. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The OEWS reports that <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_561300.htm" target="_blank">employment services</a> employs 99,840 production workers, all other. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics5_561320.htm" target="_blank">Temporary help services</a> employ over 90% of them, 91,950 production workers. Employment services reports all the job numbers for that industry group with an additional note:</span></p><p style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; width: auto;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><blockquote><p style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; width: auto;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Industries within NAICS 561300 - Employment Services</span></p><ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.5; list-style-image: url("/images/gray_round_bullet.gif"); list-style-position: outside; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em;"><li style="line-height: 22.272px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 4px;"><a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics5_561320.htm" style="color: #003399; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">NAICS 561320 - Temporary Help Services</span></a></li></ul></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></p><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The industry group contains the specific industry. This is called "drilling down." The sector includes one or more subsectors which include one or more industry groups which includes one or more industries (five digits) which may include more specific industry designations (six non-zero digits).</span></div><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Let's go back to small product assembler. The non-JBP sources are too varied with anecdotal and unsupportable methodologies to even begin to guess. I start with JBP because it is the only published methodology that does not have an apparent conflict with the DOT designation of industry (in the parentheses) or the narrative description of what and where the occupation exists. JBP reports a 2023 job number for small products assembler I of 16,138 full-time jobs. The very long list of industries (58) contains the 56th entry, temporary help services representing 11,593 jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">For purposes of discussion, we assume that the industry selections and the DOT assignments within each industry selection are appropriate. The question is simple, do jobs in the temporary help services industry (NAICS 5621320) count at step five of the sequential evaluation process -- the existence of other work that fits the claimant's medical-vocational profile. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">We know that residual functional capacity represents the most that a person could do on a sustained basis under <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR83-10-di-02.html" target="_blank">SSR 83-10</a>, <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-09-di-01.html" target="_blank">96-9p</a>. SSR <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR96-08-di-01.html" target="_blank">96-8p</a> makes clear that sustained employment means regular and continuing, eight hours a day, five days a week, or an equivalent work schedule. Does part-time work count? Only for past relevant work that was done on a part-time basis according to fn. 2. The exceptions to regular and continuing work for part-time work and seasonal work apply to past relevant work under <a href="https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425005015" target="_blank">POMS DI 24005.015</a>. Even when the regulations permitted consideration of a capacity to perform part-time work at step five, that permission extended to "reasonably regular part-time work."<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-08-26/pdf/03-21610.pdf" target="_blank">68 Fed. Reg. 51153</a>, 51158 (Aug. 6, 2003) (deleting “reasonably regular part-time” work from 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1562, 416.962). Work that is not reasonably regular has never counted at step five of the sequential evaluation process. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/reference_files_tools/2022_NAICS_Manual.pdf" target="_blank">North American Industry Classification System</a> (2022) describes the industries that exist in North America (the United States, Canada, and Mexico). Canada and Mexico use the five-digit system. The US uses the six-digit system to provide additional granular data. There are other differences described in the introduction at page 4. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">For purposes of understanding the 11,000+ jobs attributed to small products assembler I in the temporary help services industry, we need to understand that the industry designation means. The first two digits (56) refer to administrate and support and waste management and remediation services, the industry sector. The first three digits (561) refer to administrative and support services), the industry subsector. The first four digits (5613) refers to employment services, the industry group. The five (56132) and six-digit (561320) designations describe temporary help services, the specific industry. NAICS Manual at 61-62. The NAICS Manual differentiates other industries that the supply of its own employees for limited periods of time to supplement the work force of a client's business are classified in Industry 56132, temporary help services. NAICS Manual at 487 (56131 and 561311), 488 (561312). Temporary help services means:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in supplying workers to clients' businesses for limited period of time to supplement the working force of the client. The individuals provided are employees of the temporary help establishment. However, these establishments do not provide direct supervision of their employees at the clients' work sites. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">NAICS Manual at 488. Workers employed in this industry must meet the physical and mental demands of multiple clients of their employer. The jobs last for indefinite but "limited periods of time." The temp to hire paradigm is classified under employment placement services (NAICS 561311) and not temporary help services (NAICS 561320). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">When the VW explains that the jobs in temporary help services are primarily temp to hire positions, the VW misunderstands or misrepresents the classificatory scheme presented by the NAICS Manual. Working for a limited time as a small products assembler I is not regular and continuing employment under SSR 86-8p. That work does not count at step five of the sequential evaluation process. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Let's hear the witness's analysis. </span></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Temp to Hire and Temporary Help Services -- There Is a Difference and the Latter Does Not Count for Sustained Employment</i>, California Social Security Attorney (September 7, 2023, revised October 14, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a> </p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></p><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span><p><br /></p></div></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-83898003407409253022023-09-06T06:30:00.007-07:002023-09-21T06:41:57.124-07:00Vocational Expert Handbook Video Presentation -- Sedentary Work ID'd -- The O*NET and Interaction with Others<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">This is part 3 of the analysis of the vocational testimony. The March 2023 version of the Social Security Vocational Expert Handbook is out. <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/public_experts/Vocational_Experts_(VE)_Handbook-508.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Vocational Expert Handbook </i>(SSA Mar. 2023)</a>. A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1YX-Qplyo" target="_blank">video</a>, not found on the SSA channel on YouTube.com, explains the Handbook. The mock hearing in the middle of it all provides an example of good testimony that shocks the conscience. </span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b>HYPO</b>: Assume a hypothetical individual with the claimant's age, education, and past work experience is able to perform sedentary work as defined in the regulations; can perform simple routine tasks; can make simple work-related decisions; and can occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers, and never interact with the public. Could the hypothetical individual perform any work, and, if so, could you provide me with a few examples?</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Document preparer: DOT code 249.587-018; sedentary, unskilled at SVP 2 with 30,000 jobs nationally.</span><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Addresser: DOT code 209.587-010, sedentary, SVP 2, 25,000 jobs nationally.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">And cutter-and-paster: DOT code 249.587-014, sedentary, SVP 2, with 10,000 jobs nationally. </span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Let me see if I have this right: three clerical jobs in an office setting have no more than occasional interaction with other people, none of whom are members of the public? That cannot be right, ever. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The O*NET OnLine gathers data from three sources: (1) incumbents; (2) analysts; and occupational experts. <b>General office clerks </b>(SOC 43-9061) contains 74 DOT codes, 99 alternate titles, and both document preparer and cutter-and-paster. The O*NET data last updated in 2018 comes from incumbent responses, how people performing the work view their job duties.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The category is contact with others. ALJs will say, "I said interact, not contact." The O*NET defines contact with others:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">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?</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The parenthetical examples are not mere proximity but interactive in nature. Merriam-Webster defines <i><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contact" target="_blank">contact</a></i> as a relationship association, communication connection, and as a go-between. <i>Contact</i> is not mere proximity as the word is used in the O*NET nor as an agreed upon definition in American English. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">General office clerks have contact with others:</span></p><table border="1" style="width: 100%;"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5" style="vertical-align: top;" width="50%"><p style="margin: 0px;">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?</p>
</td>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">82</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Constant contact with others</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">14</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Contact with others most of the time</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">2</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Contact with others about half the time</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">0</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Occasional contact with others</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">2</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">No contact with others</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">General office clerks engage in work with a group or team:</span></p><table border="1" style="width: 100%;"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5" style="vertical-align: top;" width="50%"><p style="margin: 0px;">Work With Work Group or Team — How important is it to work with others in a group or team in this job?</p>
</td>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">64</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Extremely important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">24</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Very important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">7</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">2</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Fairly important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">2</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Not important at all</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">And general office clerks deal with the public:</span></div><div><br /></div><div><table border="1" style="width: 100%;"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5" style="vertical-align: top;" width="50%"><p style="margin: 0px;">Deal With External Customers — How important is it to work with external customers or the public in this job?</p>
</td>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">65</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Extremely important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">14</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Very important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">13</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">2</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Fairly important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">6</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Not important at all</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b>Word processors or typists </b>(SOC 43-9022) (the occupational group containing addresser) has similar data:</span></div><div><br /></div><div><table border="1" style="width: 100%;"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5" style="vertical-align: top;" width="50%"><p style="margin: 0px;">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?</p>
</td>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">69</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Constant contact with others</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">31</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Contact with others most of the time</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">0</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Contact with others about half the time</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">0</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Occasional contact with others</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">0</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">No contact with others</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div><table border="1" style="width: 100%;"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5" style="vertical-align: top;" width="50%"><p style="margin: 0px;">Work With Work Group or Team — How important is it to work with others in a group or team in this job?</p>
</td>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">49</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Extremely important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">19</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Very important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">20</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">12</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Fairly important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">0</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Not important at all</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div><table border="1" style="width: 100%;"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5" style="vertical-align: top;" width="50%"><p style="margin: 0px;">Deal With External Customers — How important is it to work with external customers or the public in this job?</p>
</td>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">64</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Extremely important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">19</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Very important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">17</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">0</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Fairly important</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="5%">
<p style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;">0</p>
</td>
<td width="45%">
<p style="margin: 0px;">Not important at all</p></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Very few general office clerks have occasional contact with others, do not engage in teamwork, and/oir do not deal with external customers. No word processors or typists have any of those characteristics. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Agency policy confirms what the O*NET says as a matter of published administrative notice. <a href="https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425020010" target="_blank">POMS DI 25020.010</a> sec. B.3g. says:</span></div><div></div><blockquote><div><b><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">3. Mental Abilities Critical For Performing Unskilled Work</span></b></div>
<div class="poms-subsection2-body">
<p class="poms-para"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The claimant/beneficiary must show the ability to:</span></p><p class="poms-para"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">g. work in coordination with or proximity to others without being (unduly) distracted
by them. </span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">When the O*NET describes these two occupational groups as having the bona fide occupational qualification (the expected tolerances if not the essential functions) of work, the O*NET provides the date for the Commissioner's published observation. What kind of work does not require working with a group or team? More likely, but not necessarily, semi-skilled and skilled work:</span></p><div class="poms-subsection2-title"><h3 class="sectitle"><span class="poms-subsection2-label"></span></h3><blockquote><h3 class="sectitle"><span class="poms-subsection2-label">4. </span>Mental Abilities Needed to Do Semiskilled and Skilled Work</h3><h3 class="sectitle"><span style="font-weight: normal;">b. </span> <span style="font-weight: normal;">Often, there is an <span class="poms-bold">increasing requirement for understanding </span>and <span class="poms-bold">memory </span>and for <span class="poms-bold">concentration </span>and persistence, e.g.: the ability to:</span></h3><h3 class="sectitle"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-weight: normal;">set realistic goals or make plans independently of others.</span></li></ul></h3></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">People engaged in skilled and semi-skilled work are more likely to have work duties and do not require coordination and teamwork as compared to unskilled work. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Commonsense tells us that clerical work is not performed with occasional interactions with others. The Commissioner knows this. The O*NET confirms commonsense and POMS (administrative notice). </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Now for something extra for no extra charge. Word processors and typists are a rapidly shrinking occupational group. It is faster for me to type than to handwrite. Dictation is a lost art. The number of clerk typists has plummeted in the last 35 years. In 1997, BLS counted typists including word processors as representing 404,570 jobs. The 2021 OOH tallies up word processors and typists at a paltry 46,100 jobs. The 2022 OEWS estimates 41,990. So please humble vocational witness, explain to me how more than half of the currently existing word processors and typists simply affix labels to outgoing mail. </span></p><p>Asking for a friend. </p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Vocational Expert Handbook Video Presentation -- Sedentary Work ID'd -- The O*NET and Interaction with Others</i>, California Social Security Attorney (September 6, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a></p></div><blockquote><div class="poms-subsection2-body"><p class="poms-para"> </p></div></blockquote><div class="poms-subsection2-body"><p class="poms-para"></p></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-11597668697008035212023-09-03T19:01:00.002-07:002023-09-03T19:01:07.953-07:00Vocational Expert Handbook Video Presentation -- Sedentary Work ID'd -- Sitting, Reasoning, and Job Browser Pro<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The March 2023 version of the Social Security Vocational Expert Handbook is out. <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/public_experts/Vocational_Experts_(VE)_Handbook-508.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Vocational Expert Handbook </i>(SSA Mar. 2023)</a>. A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1YX-Qplyo" target="_blank">video</a> , not found on the SSA channel on YouTube.com, explains the Handbook. The mock hearing in the middle of it all provides an example of good testimony that shocks the conscience. </span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b>ALJ</b>: Assume a hypothetical individual with the claimant's age, education, and past work experience is able to perform light work as defined in the regulations, except they can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; and can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; must avoid unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts, and operating a motor vehicle; can perform simple routine tasks; can make simple work-related decisions; and can occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers, and never interact with the public. Could the hypothetical individual perform any work, and, if so, could you provide me with a few examples?</span></p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">...<br /></span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Now, assume the same limitations I stated in the first hypothetical except the individual is limited to sedentary work as defined in the regulations. Can that person perform any work?<br /><br /><b>VW</b>: Yes, jobs such as document preparer: DOT code 249.587-018; sedentary, unskilled at SVP 2 with 30,000 jobs nationally.</span><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Addresser: DOT code 209.587-010, sedentary, SVP 2, 25,000 jobs nationally.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">And cutter-and-paster: DOT code 249.587-014, sedentary, SVP 2, with 10,000 jobs nationally. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">There are some differences in how the document preparer and addresser jobs are performed and currently as compared to the description and requirements in the DOT due to the availability of more modern technology now. For example, the description for document preparer says a person prepares documents, such as brochures, pamphlets, and catalogs, for microfilming, using a paper cutter, photocopying machine, rubber stamps, and other work devices. Microfilming technology has changed over time and now scanners are used to copy and help prepare documents for indexing and storage.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The rationale is the same for cutter and paster position, which is described in the DOT as tearing or cutting out marked articles or advertisements from newspapers and magazines, using a knife or scissors, and recording the name of the publication, page, location, date, and name of the customer on the label, and affixing the label to a clipping. More modern tools are used to perform this job, but the position is the same and it requires essentially the same functional abilities.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">As for the addresser job, one of the tasks in the description in the DOT states "addresses by hand or by typewriter, envelopes, cares, advertising literature, and packages, and similar items for mailing." Now, envelopes, cards, advertising literature, packages and similar items for mailing are still sent, but the job may be performed by placing pre-printed labels on these items instead of doing them by hand or by typewriter, but they can still be performed by hand too.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Overall, more modern tools are used to perform these jobs, but the positional and functional requirements are effectively the same as explained in the DOT. My testimony is based on my experience and knowledge in the job market, including over 30 years of placing individuals into jobs and observing how the performance of these jobs has changed over time as well as vocational and rehabilitation counseling.</span><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Under the guise of <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/02/SSR83-10-di-02.html" target="_blank">SSR 83-10</a>, the agency and the vocational experts assume that a limitation to sedentary work includes a limitation to sitting six hours in an eight-hour workday. The first question is whether that assumption is true. The ruling states: </span></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. By its very nature, work performed primarily in a seated position entails no significant stooping.</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Sedentary jobs are primarily seated and standing/walking are required occasionally. The ruling defines <i>occasionally</i>:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">"Occasionally" means occurring from very little up to one-third of the
time. </span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"></span></div><div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">Very little is less than two hours and one-third of the time is more than two hours. Standing/walking </span></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";">should generally total no more than about 2 hours of in 8-hour workday, and sitting should generally total approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday. Work processes in specific jobs will dictate how often and how long a person will need to be on his or her feet to obtain or return small articles.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">1. Sedentary work does not have a rigid and fixed 6-2 split of sitting versus standing/walking. The no more than two hours and approximately six hours with the deciding factor contained in the processes of the specific jobs forms the exceptions that swallow the rule. That and of course facts. Do these jobs ever require as an essential job function or a bona fide occupational qualification the need to sit for more than two hours in an eight-hour day? Ask that question somewhere in the cross-examination. </span></p></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">2. Reasoning level rests at the heart of work complexity. The <i>Vocational Expert Handbook</i> describes reasoning ability as part of the education component of the vocational profile. Pages 29-30. The <i>Vocational Expert Handbook</i> states clearly that simple or repetitive tasks have an apparent conflict with reasoning level 3 and directs the VW to "be prepared to explain how the hypothetical individual could perform this job." Pages 39-40. Document preparer requires reasoning level 3. The witness did not explain the apparent conflict. This issue does not require cross-examination. The issue must be argued at the close of the case. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">3. Job Browser Pro is the ubiquitous source for job numbers. The VW says</span></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Document preparer: 30,000 jobs nationally.</span><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Addresser: 25,000 jobs nationally.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Cutter-and-paster: 10,000 jobs nationally. </span></blockquote></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">JBP (ver. 1.7.4.1) says:</span></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Document preparer: 15,670 jobs nationally in 2023.</span><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Addresser: 2,068 jobs nationally.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Cutter-and-paster: 702 jobs nationally. </span></blockquote></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">This evidence must be presented to the ALJ before the decision is made. Some ALJs will not permit post-hearing evidence. They are wrong but put the evidence into the record during the hearing. </span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">In the next post on this subject, we will deal with the methodology problem including how the testimony plays into the JBP methodology. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Stay tuned. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><br /></span></div><div><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Vocational Expert Handbook Video Presentation -- Sedentary Work ID'd -- Sitting, Reasoning, and Job Browser Pro</i>, California Social Security Attorney (September 3, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a></p></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";"><br /></span></div>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4055864978674629198.post-65968085713283929282023-08-28T16:28:00.003-07:002023-09-21T06:43:43.963-07:00Vocational Expert Handbook Video Presentation -- Light Work ID'd -- OMG, Are You Kidding Me?<p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The March 2023 version of the Social Security Vocational Expert Handbook is out. <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/public_experts/Vocational_Experts_(VE)_Handbook-508.pdf" target="_blank"><i>Vocational Expert Handbook </i>(SSA Mar. 2023)</a>. A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY1YX-Qplyo" target="_blank">video</a>, not found on the SSA channel on YouTube.com, explains the Handbook. The mock hearing in the middle of it all provides an example of good testimony that shocks the conscience. </span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><strong>ALJ:</strong> Assume a hypothetical individual with the
claimant's age, education, and past work experience is able to perform light
work as defined in the regulations, except they can occasionally climb ramps
and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; and can never climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; must avoid unprotected heights, moving mechanical
parts, and operating a motor vehicle; can perform simple routine tasks; can make
simple work-related decisions; and can occasionally interact with supervisors
and coworkers, and never interact with the public. Could the hypothetical
individual perform any work, and, if so, could you provide me with a few
examples?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 5.0pt; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 5.0pt; margin: 5pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><strong>VE:</strong> Yes, jobs such as cleaner, housekeeping (DOT code
323.687-014). That is light, SVP 2, with 200,000 jobs nationally. Routing clerk
(DOT code 222.687-022). That is light, SVP 2, with 40,000 jobs nationally. And
marker (DOT code 209.587-034). That is light, SVP 2, with 200,000 jobs
nationally.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Under SSR 83-10, the agency and the vocational experts are directed to assume that a limitation to light work includes a limitation to standing/walking six hours in an eight-hour workday. The vocational witness has stated that a housekeeping cleaner has a maximum stand/walk requirement of six hours. That is palpably false based on the DOT narrative, O*NET OnLine, and Occupational Requirements Survey. The vocational witness has claimed that the inherently clerical functions of a routing clerk have occasional or less contact with others. The witness lays claim that warehouse work has occasional or less contact with others, </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b>Housekeeping cleaner</b> has the Lead Statement (after the number, title, industry, and alternate titles): "Cleans rooms and halls in commercial establishments, such as hotels, restaurants, clubs, beauty parlors, and dormitories" The Task Element Statements (how the Lead Statement gets accomplished) states: "Sorts, counts, folds, marks, or carries linens. Makes beds. Replenishes
supplies, such as drinking glasses and writing supplies. Checks wraps
and renders personal assistance to patrons. Moves furniture, hangs
drapes, and rolls carpets. Performs other duties as described under
CLEANER (any industry) I Master Title." Find two hours of sitting in the expected or essential work duties, every day without fail. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The O*NET describes housekeeping cleaner under the broad heading of maids and housekeeping cleaners as having occasional or no contact with others in 18% of jobs. Maids have no important contact with the public is 8% of jobs. Maids do not work with a group or team as at least a fairly important job function in 4% of jobs. Maids never sit in 72% of jobs, less than half the time in 25% of jobs, and about half the time in 3% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The ORS describes maids as interacting with the general public in 76.3% of jobs. Maids require basic people skills in 97.1% of jobs. Maids stand (including walk) 87.5% of the day at the 10th percentile, 95% of the day at the 25% percentile, and 100% of the day at the median, 75th, and 90th percentiles. Maids engage in light exertion in 69.3% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b> Routing clerk </b>has the Lead Statement "Sorts bundles, boxes, or lots of articles for delivery." The Task Element Statements states: "Reads delivery or route numbers marked on articles or delivery slips, or
determines locations of addresses indicated on delivery slips, using
charts. Places or stacks articles in bins designated according to route,
driver, or type. ay be designated according to workstation as Conveyor
Belt Package Sorter (retail trade)." Sounds an awful lot like mail clerk, an R3 occupation. The DOT classifies routing clerk as R2. Routing clerk does have significant data functions of comparing: judging the readily observable functional, structural, or compositional characteristics (whether similar to or divergent from obvious standards) of data, people, or things.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The O*NET describes routing clerk under the broad heading of shipping, receiving, and inventory clerk as having occasional or no contact with others in 0% of jobs. Shipping clerks have no important contact with the public is 4% of jobs. Shipping clerks do not work with a group or team as at least a fairly important job function in 1% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The ORS describes Shipping clerks as interacting with the general public in 63.6% of jobs. Shipping clerks require basic people skills in 69.2% of jobs and more than basic people skills in 30.8% of jobs. Shipping clerks stand (including walk) 25% of the day at the 10th percentile, 50% of the day at the 25% percentile, 80% of the day at the median, 95% of the day at the 75th percentile, and 100% of the day at the 90th percentiles. Shipping clerks engage in light exertion in 21.5% of jobs and unskilled work in 46.3% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;"><b>Marker </b>has the Lead Statement "Marks and attaches price tickets to articles of merchandise to record price and identifying information." The Task Element Statements states: "Marks selling price by hand on boxes containing merchandise, or on price
tickets. Ties, glues, sews, or staples price ticket to each article.
Presses lever or plunger of mechanism that pins, pastes, ties, or
staples ticket to article. ay record number and types of articles marked
and pack them in boxes." The DOT classifies marker as R2. Marker does have significant data functions of copying: Transcribing, entering, or posting data.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The O*NET describes markers under the broad heading of stockers and order fillers as having occasional or no contact with others in 4% of jobs. Stockers have no important contact with the public is 6% of jobs. Stockers do not work with a group or team as at least a fairly important job function in 4% of jobs. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The ORS describes stockers as interacting with the public in 73.6% of jobs. Stockers require basic people skills in 95% of jobs and more than basic people skills in 5% of jobs. Stocker stand (including walk) 80% of the day at the 10th percentile, 90% of the day at the 25% percentile, 95% of the day at the median, and 100% of the day at the 75th and 90th percentiles. Stockers lift up to 25 pounds at the 10th percentile, 50 pounds at the 25th percentile and median, 60 pounds at hte 75th percentile, and 75 pounds at the 90th percentile. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The witness goes on to describe the 30 years' experience, but no experience related to these three occupations. The sample of cross-examination does not ask about other sources of job information or where the vocational witness obtained the idea that these occupations do not require prolonged standing/walking, interaction with the public, or more than occasional interaction with others. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">The agency needs to stop giving examples to strive to become that are facially unsupported. The fact that many vocational experts would give this kind of testimony does not make it reliable. It makes it ubiquitously wrong. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style;">Talk me off the cliff. </span></p><p>___________________________</p><p>Suggested Citation:<br /><br />Lawrence Rohlfing, <i>Vocational Expert Handbook Video Presentation -- Light Work ID'd -- OMG, Are You Kidding Me?</i>, California Social Security Attorney (August 28, 2023) <a href="https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com">https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com</a></p><p>The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.<br /><br /><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Il5t4PbG5PH9oM3_YCUk84PnvxVflsHoGWKMrGSdZ3jTcz2uKOpePat7bdAtXzAM-nVE8oQcko3Og53SXxAyLZksOUH_-am2jF5jSi3W7dNNuM8rj1Jbgxjq2XGtY1yYbbW4Yx9udnTLyG91lygb00H4qQoZBMNViqkaLVeLw_MZyjJA_3h_IT_9mg/s320/logo_av.png" /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><br /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s300/mybadge.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkaW-39wpN_oq-Zbfi6WhEyWMZbyuEi62pxAYj1FW2un1eqDwOj5TvR0pKD-tBNThsUqBqY6NUD2FgjHEajNSi9lcbJsctYi9s_i5v_POg9JHdZq2Lj01lfqI5dNW8uUdselMoBekS9zbbthtRP7UycKXz8HQC0ABBe02sVcYuTQgAOHxjsnRf9qUixQ/s16000/mybadge.png" /></a></p><p><br /></p>Lawrence Rohlfinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12391309965305505952noreply@blogger.com0