Today, we examine Cain
v. Bisignano, a published opinion by the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. Cain has a residual functional capacity for sedentary work with no
public interaction. We can assume that Cain is a younger individual with more
than a marginal education. Thomas Dunleavy testifies that such a person can
work as a “sorter (18,000 jobs), assembler (20,000 jobs), and visual inspector
(21,000 jobs).” The hearing representative did nothing. The representative
requested review and did nothing. The representative in court attacked the job
numbers as insubstantial. Cain found the issue forfeit. Cain is
correct.
The five step sequential evaluation process is well- and
long-established. 20 CFR § 404.1520. A reasonable representative is prepared to
address:
1.
Earnings during the relevant period of alleged
disability.
2.
The existence of medically
impairments.
a.
Are they determinable by accepted clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques?
b.
Are the impairments severe – do they cause a
significant impact of the ability to perform basic work functions?
3.
Do the impairments:
a.
Meet a listed impairment in Appendix 1?
b.
Equal a listed impairment in Appendix 1?
c.
What is the residual functional capacity that
the person retains?
4.
Can the claimant perform past relevant work?
a.
Does the claimant have past relevant work?
i.
In the five years before the decision and/or
before the date last insured?
ii. That
the claimant performed long enough to learn how to do it?
iii. That the claimant performed as substantial
gainful:
1.
Based on earnings?
2.
Based on value of the services where the person
is not a bona fide employee?
b.
Does the past relevant work require more than
the residual functional capacity?
5.
Can the person perform other work:
a.
Considering age;
b.
Considering education;
c.
Considering work experience (transferable
skills);
d.
Does the work exist in significant numbers?
Some representatives fail to do their job at steps 4.a and 5. Those issues involve numbers and representatives are math phobic. According to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, working as a lawyer (and any representative doing legal work should be held to that standard) requires mathematics level 4. The DICOT defines math level 4:
ALGEBRA: Deal with system of real numbers; linear, quadratic, rational, exponential, logarithmic, angle and circular functions, and inverse functions: related algebraic solution of equations and inequalities: limits and continuity and probability and statistical inference. GEOMETRY: Deductive axiomatic geometry, plane and solid, and rectangular coordinates. SHOP MATH: Practical application of fractions, percentages, ratio and proportion, measurement, logarithms, practical algebra, geometric constructions, and essentials of trigonometry.
SkillTRAN states that math level 4 requires basic algebra.
In the modern era, representative must understand and use statistics. That
ability is embedded in math level 4 and more clearly required by math level 5.
Representatives have at least a masters’ level education. Representatives have
the education to do math levels 4 and 5.
A representative must cross-examine the vocational expert
and challenge job numbers and methodology. Doing nothing is probably below the
standard of care. Let’s look at the job numbers:
|
Occupation |
JBP |
ORS |
OEWS |
EP |
SOEUQ |
|
Sorter 521.687-086 |
2,370 |
<<3,639 <<3,666 |
8,210 SOC-NAICS |
8,500 SOC-NAICS |
5,481 |
|
Dowel Inspector 669.687-014 |
193 |
6,290 SOC-NAICS |
6,500 SOC-NAICS |
238 |
|
|
Film Touch Up Insp. 726.684-050 |
1,067 |
35,230 SOC-NAICS |
33,900 SOC-NAICS |
2,800 |
|
|
Final Assembler 713.687-018 |
71 |
<350 <366 |
3,790 SOC-NAICS |
4,800 SOC-NAICS |
74 |
We quickly discover that sorter and inspector in reside in
the same SOC, inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers 51-9061.
Final assembler is a production workers, all other (SOC 51-9199) occupation.
Neither JBP nor the SOEUQ identify many jobs, certainly not the number offered
by Dunleavy. My guess is that Dunleavy used an old version of the OEQ and was
completely oblivious to the fact that he identified 51-9061 occupations twice
with the second unclear if it was dowel or film touch up inspector.
What does a representative need?
1. Job Browser Pro or OASYS from SkillTRAN.
2. OccuCollect to get an ORS based number
using the Employment Projections (OOH) or OEWS job numbers.
3. OEQ and SOEUQ.
Why? Because vocational experts use SkillTRAN, the ORS with
the OOH or OEWS gross job numbers, and/or the OEQ/SOEUQ from US Publishing. If
we don’t have ready access to SkillTRAN, OccuCollect, AND US Publishing data to
cross-examine the witness on the fly, right there, right now, we will let the
vocational witness steal from the client and rob the representative of fees.
Disjointed complaining is not sufficient.
1. What is your methodology?
2. Is your testimony consistent with:
a. Job Browser Pro/OASYS?
b. ORS using OEWS/EP?
c. OEQ and for sedentary occupations
SOEUQ?
3. Is your testimony an accepted methodology
in the community of vocational experts?
a. Is your
methodology unique to you?
While we ask those six questions, we pull up the source
identified in question 1 or the three subparts of question 2. Then we read the
data to the judge. We submit the data to the judge after the hearing. We used
to drive back to the office. Now we use commute time to submit rebuttal briefs.
Dunleavy’s testimony is typical of lazy witnesses that give the ALJ what the
witness thinks the ALJ wants to hear. We must expose the lack of rational
foundation for that testimony.
Don’t let Cain be the bane or your
experience.
___________________________
Suggested Citation:
Lawrence Rohlfing, Forfeiture of Step Five Vocational Issues -- Don't,
California Social Security Attorney (August 11, 2025, revised August 15, 2025)
https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com
The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.
