Job Browser Pro 1.7 -- the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I installed Job Browser Pro, ver. 1.7, yesterday and took it out for a test drive.  If anyone represents claimants and listen to vocational experts testify, then JBP is a mandatory part of the representative's library, period.  Vocational experts will cite to it, rely on it, and the ALJ corps will accept it.  If the representative wins one case every 20 years because the representative owns and uses JBP, the program pays for itself.

1.  JBP Methodology

JBP uses the matrix approach found in the Occupational Employment Statistics and the Employment Projections published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Occupations exist in industries.  The DOT recognizes this with the parenthetical industry designation that is party of every occupational description.  According to the DOT, the industry designation is an integral part of every description.  When a vocational expert identifies an occupation and then uses the entire occupational group number for that occupation (and it isn't one of occupations that is the sole inhabitant of that group), the vocational expert ignores and conflicts with the industry designation contained in the DOT, usually without an explanation.  More about the methodology in the Bad section.

2. The Good

Users can no longer add and delete industries.  Vocational experts dissatisfied with the low job numbers reported could and would add industries.  This was a particular problem in prior versions of JBP because the vocational experts would add inappropriate industries or add industries where JBP had already listed the two, three, four, or five digit designation resulting in double or triple counting.

 JBP has added the CBP button to the occupation-industry matrix inside of the box.  County Business Patterns is a matter of administrative notice by regulation, listed second after the DOT.  The link sends uses to a SkillTran page for that industry.  The web page lists the total number of establishments in the industry (sector (two-digit), sub-sector (three-digits), industry group (four-digits), or industry (five- and six-digits)), number of employees, and other statistical data that we do not use.

Jeff Truthan tells me that if the user looks up all the DOT codes within a group and count all the reported job numbers, user will get roughly the number of jobs reported within the OES group.  Critics will no longer be able to complain that JBP has under-counted the number of jobs.

3.  The Bad

JBP continues to use equal distribution  to distribute the number of jobs at the occupation-industry intersection.  When I looked up production workers, all other (SOC 51-9199) at the intersection with animal food manufacturing (NAICS 311100), I found that JBP lists five occupations, each representing 20% of the total jobs, four requiring no skills, and one semi-skilled occupation.  All of them are light.  We know from the Occupational Requirements Survey that most of the production worker jobs are medium and 45% are semi-skilled or skilled.  The equal distribution methodology is not good statistics at the occupational group level and is not good statistics at the occupation-industry intersection level.

While JBP continues to allow users to see the list of DOT codes at the occupation-industry intersection, it still does not permit users to print out the Estimated National Distribution of DOT Employment of that occupation-industry intersection.  This has left me with the tedious chore of taking a screen shot of that popup and if the screen lists more than 13 DOT codes, multiple screen shots.

4. The Ugly

Some of the industry choices are just wrong.  I looked up the oft-cited small products assembler I (DOT 706.584-022) to check.  SPA work on assembly lines to mass product small products.  That is the DOT narrative.  Because the occupation exists in more than four DOT industries, it carries the designation of "any industry."  But that does not mean every industry, it means more than four.

JBP lists eight industry groups within the food manufacturing sub-sector and 22 other industries that have nothing to do with the functions to "mass produce small products, such as ball bearings, automobile door locking units, speedometers, condensers, distributors, ignition coils, drafting table subassemblies, or carburetors."

I checked lens inserter (DOT 713.587-026).  JBP lists this occupation in the jewelry and silverware manufacturing industry.  The DOT puts lens inserter in the optical goods industry.  JBP puts the other 19 production worker occupations that are designated in the optical goods industry into medical equipment and supplies manufacturing, which contains the ophthalmic goods manufacturing industry (with some of the 20 adding to that list).  I understand why JBP puts lens inserter in clearly the wrong industry -- it is the only DOT code assigned.

The production workers that do carry the jewelry and silverware industry designation in the DOT have no industries assigned by JBP.  Stringer (DOT 509.587-018) is "N/A."  Stamper (DOT 734.685-010) in the button and notions industry is given the other miscellaneous manufacturing industry designation.  The problem is that jewelry and silverware is part of other miscellaneous manufacturing, resulting in double counting or over-estimating the number of jobs across DOT codes.

The occupation-industry intersection approach to job number estimates is still valuable for finding those occupations that have rare characteristics -- reasoning level 1, occasional use of the hands, etc. -- but JBP still has holes.  This creates opportunities for the representative to dampen the number of jobs through a reliable methodology, don't double count or explain why the assembler of small products is making dog food.  Proper cross-examination will require that vocational experts come to the hearing with the occupation report from JBP and allow the representative to see it, or the ALJ will have to accept the report from the representative post-hearing.

The job of the representative just got easier and harder at the same time.

Parking Lot Attendants -- Sit-Stand Option?

Some variation of light unskilled work with limitations on standing/walking and even a sit-stand option (SSO) will frequently get a vocational expert to identify parking-lot attendant. The free DOT-SOC/O*NET Crosswalk from www.occucollect.com lists three DOT codes in the group:

53-6021.00-Parking Lot Attendants

DOT Code	DOT Title	SVP	Strength
915.473-010	PARKING-LOT ATTENDANT	2	L
915.583-010	LOT ATTENDANT	3	L
915.667-014	PARKING LOT SIGNALER	2	L

The list of DOT codes suggests that all the jobs are light, but that is not true.  The DOT lists typical performance, not maximum performance.  SSR 00-4p is wrong and does not survive application of Kisor v. Wilkie.  The quest involves proof of the strength and skill requirements.

The Occupational Requirements Survey reports:

Series ID: ORUP1000065A00000233

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: parking lot attendants; pounds maximum weight lifted/carried, mean

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Parking Lot Attendants

Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted/carried, mean

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	21.94

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000065A00000233

Series ID: ORUP1000065A00000235

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: parking lot attendants; pounds maximum weight lifted/carried (25th percentile)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Parking Lot Attendants

Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted/carried (25th percentile)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	7.46

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000065A00000235

Series ID: ORUP1000065A00000237

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: parking lot attendants; pounds maximum weight lifted/carried (75th percentile)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Parking Lot Attendants

Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted/carried (75th percentile)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	34.57

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000065A00000237

Series ID: ORUP1000065A00000238

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: parking lot attendants; pounds maximum weight lifted/carried (90th percentile)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Parking Lot Attendants

Estimate: pounds maximum weight lifted/carried (90th percentile)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	44.11

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000065A00000238

The mean suggests that the average parking lot attendant requires medium exertion because the worker lifts/carries more than the maximum of light work, 20 pounds.  We also can find that most of the jobs are indeed unskilled.  

Series ID: ORUV1000065A00000065

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of parking lot attendants; svp is beyond short demonstration, up to & including 1 month

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: Parking Lot Attendants

Estimate: svp is beyond short demonstration, up to & including 1 month

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	84.3

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000065A00000065

And there, the ORS runs cold.  To determine the availability of light work, we must resort to the O*NET OnLine.

53-6021.00 - Parking Lot Attendants

Exertional	%	Response
Spend Time Sitting — How much does this job require sitting?	18	Continually or almost continually
	9	More than half the time
	42	About half the time
	24	Less than half the time
	7	Never
Exertional	%	Response
Spend Time Standing — How much does this job require standing?	9	Continually or almost continually
	19	More than half the time
	45	About half the time
	25	Less than half the time
	2	Never
Exertional	%	Response
Spend Time Walking and Running — How much does this job require walking and running?	54	Continually or almost continually
	13	More than half the time
	6	About half the time
	18	Less than half the time
	8	Never
Structural Job Characteristics	%	Response
Duration of Typical Work Week — Number of hours typically worked in one week.	1	More than 40 hours
	80	40 hours
	19	Less than 40 hours

The majority of parking lot attendants walk/run all day long.  Potential for an SSO exists only in those jobs that permit sitting continually or almost continually.  That is how labor defines the SSO. Because of the lifting, some of those jobs might be sedentary.  Now we turn to the number of jobs reported by the Occupational Outlook Handbook:

53-6021 - Parking lot attendants

Typical Education Needed	No formal educational credential
Work Experience in a Related Occupation	None
Typical On-The-Job Training Needed to Attain Competency	Short-term on-the-job training
2018 Employment	150,700

We erode the 150,700 jobs by the number that are unskilled, 84.3% of the jobs, and get 126,588.  The O*NET reports that 81% are full-time, lowering that number to 102,536.  We now apply the percentage of jobs that are reported as sitting continually or almost continually in an eight-hour day, 18%, and get 18,456.  

The 18,456 number of jobs includes both sedentary and light jobs.  Without better data, further exploration of that division is not possible.  We can point to the broad description of Transportation and Material Moving Occupations (53-0000.00):

Series ID: ORUP1000048P00000661

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of workers in transportation and material moving occupations; strength is sedentary

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Transportation and Material Moving Occupations

Estimate: strength is sedentary

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	11.2

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000048P00000661

The proposition that some or most of the sit down parking lot jobs is sustainable.  Of course, the question is whether the vocational expert has a reliable methodology that beats cold application of statistics.  

Establishing the Vocational Expert's Methodology Requires Verification

The objective of cross-examination of the vocational expert must hone in one establishing that the vocational expert testimony is feeble or contradicted.  Biestek v. Berryhill instructs:

And of course, a different (maybe less qualified) expert failing to produce such data might offer testimony that is so feeble, or contradicted, that it would fail to clear the substantial-evidence bar.

The Ninth Circuit decision in Buck v. Berryhill establishes the same proposition:

"An ALJ may take administrative notice of any reliable job information, including information provided by a VE." Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1218. "A VE's recognized expertise provides the necessary foundation for his or her testimony. Thus, no additional foundation is required." Id.

Buck erroneously reads the above language from Bayliss to require that the ALJ independently assess the reliability of VE testimony. However, as is clear from the language of Bayliss, at least in the absence of any contrary evidence, a VE's testimony is one type of job information that is regarded as inherently reliable; thus, there is no need for an ALJ to assess its reliability.

The representative must present contrary evidence and show that the vocational expert is not reliable.

In a hearing yesterday out of Evanston, Illinois, with the claimant appearing in Rockford by video conference and me on phone from sunny Santa Fe Springs, the vocational expert testified that the claimant's medical vocational profile permitted such a person to perform work as a mail clerk (DOT 209.687-026) as representing 10,400 jobs in the nation and office helper (DOT 239.567-010) representing 55,000 jobs in the nation.  After dancing around claiming to use the Occupational Employment Statistics and disavowing knowledge or use of the NAICS industry codes, the VE  distilled her methodology for estimating job numbers as relying on Job Browser Pro published by SkillTran.

Rebutting JBP is tough business.  Rebutting JBP requires reverse engineering and understanding the limits of the program as well as its use of equal distribution at the occupation-industry intersection.  But we don't have to go there.  We need to compare the VE testimony to the content of JBP.

JBP describes mail clerk as representing 2,130 jobs as of 2018.  That is a far cry from 10,400 jobs and marks substantial progress in showing conflict and feebleness of the VE testimony.

JBP describes office helper as representing 3,711 jobs as of 2018.  The drop from 55,000 jobs to 3,711 jobs is a change from clearly significant to insignificant.

Here is the probable explanation:  VEs do not go back and check their data.  Establishing conflict is as simple as owning a copy of JBP and running the numbers.  I take screen shots of the DOT estimate page to capture all of the statements of the aggregate number of jobs at the SOC-OES/NAICS intersection, the number of DOT codes, and the estimate applicable to the specific DOT code.  I then print the formal report that restates the DOT narrative (sans the industry designation), the number of DOT codes in the group, the incidence of full-time versus part-time, and then the SOC-OES/NAICS intersection without the statement of the number of DOT codes in that intersection.

In this case, the vocational expert has not offered testimony that is reliable.  In her own stated methodology, the number of jobs is wrong.  The testimony is feeble and contradicted.  The ALJ now has to deal with that conflict in the evidence.

Labor Classifies the Sit-Stand Option as Sitting

The Occupational Requirements Survey is the intended replacement for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.  Question 2 of the General Questions and Answers states:

SSA uses five steps of Sequential Evaluation to determine whether disability applicants qualify for benefits. At steps 4 and 5 of this process, adjudicators need information about a representative sample of occupations in the national economy to determine whether people with functional limitations resulting from severe impairments can still perform work. Currently, SSA uses the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) at steps 4 and 5, and it has not been updated in more than 20 years. SSA is developing an Occupational Information System to replace the DOT which will incorporate the data collected through ORS. This information is crucial to the equitable and efficient operation of SSA‘s disability programs.

The ORS gathers data according to Labor's understanding of SSA needs.   The Collection Manual, Third Edition, describes the data and defines the terms.  Chapter 7 describes the physical demands of work to perform the critical tasks.  Sitting vs. standing/walking at will exists when:

• Workers typically have the flexibility to choose between sitting and standing throughout the day.  
• There is no assigned time during the day to sit or stand/walk. 
• No external factors determine whether workers must sit or stand/walk.

Collection Manual, page 78.  Examples of sitting vs. standing/walking at will include:

1. An office clerk can choose when to file and typically stands while filing invoices. 
2. A pharmaceutical sales rep driving to clients can choose when to make trips and additional stops.
3. An elementary teacher may sit or stand to instruct students and while monitoring them on duties.

Id.  Examples of work that is not classified as sitting vs. standing/walking at will include:

1. An over-the-road truck driver must meet a delivery schedule. He stops to refuel and for weigh stations.
2. An event parking lot attendant must stand when cars are entering the parking lot to accept payment and direct cars.
3. A security guard chooses to sit or stand, except when she walks to investigate suspicious situations.

Id.  The SSO envisions the worker performing the same tasks while either sitting or standing.  If that option exists for all workers, it is not an accommodation.  Id., page 9.  

The phrasing of a sit/stand option (SSO) represents a different problem than sitting v. standing/walking at will.  The ORS defines sitting as the function critical to performing work:

• Workers remain in a seated position. This includes active sitting. For instance, bicyclists sit but pushes/pulls with their feet/legs.
• Workers are inactive and seated or prone. For instance, a medical resident on call for a thirty-hour shift taking a strategic nap is sitting.
• Workers may choose between sitting and standing for a given task. For example, office workers can choose a standing desk.

Id., page 73.  An occupation that permits the worker to choose between sitting and standing at will throughout the day to perform the sames tasks carries the descriptor of sitting, not standing/walking.

The broad classification of production occupations (SOC 51-0000.00) would not permit an SSO throughout the day:

Series ID: ORUP1000047P00001002

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: production occupations; % of day sitting is required (90th percentile)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Production Occupations

Estimate: % of day sitting is required (90th percentile)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	66.7

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000047P00001002

A significant range of production occupations do have the ability to change tasks during the workday:

Series ID: ORUP1000047P00000139

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of workers in production occupations; sitting vs. standing/walking at will is allowed

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Production Occupations

Estimate: sitting vs. standing/walking at will is allowed

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	15.1

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000047P00000139

Production occupations represent 9.4 million jobs in the economy and 6.5 million jobs in the manufacturing sector.  This includes every line item SOC group with the first two digits of 51.  Production occupations (SOC 51-0000.00) is summary designation that includes smaller summary designations and line items (specific SOC designations).  

The broad classification of transportation and material moving occupations (SOC 53-0000.00) warrants individual occupational group investigation on the question of SSO:

Series ID: ORUP1000048P00001002

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: transportation and material moving occupations; % of day sitting is required (90th percentile)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Transportation and Material Moving Occupations

Estimate: % of day sitting is required (90th percentile)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	90

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000048P00001002

A less significant range of transportation and material moving occupations do have the ability to change tasks during the workday:

Series ID: ORUP1000048P00000139

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of workers in transportation and material moving occupations; sitting vs. standing/walking at will is allowed

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Transportation and Material Moving Occupations

Estimate: sitting vs. standing/walking at will is allowed

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	9.4

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000048P00000139

Transportation and material moving occupations represent 10.8 million jobs in the economy and just under 1 million jobs in the manufacturing sector.  This includes every line item SOC group with the first two digits of 53.  Transportation and material moving occupations (SOC 53-0000.00) is summary designation that includes smaller summary designations and line items (specific SOC designations).  

The cross-examination path when a vocational expert identifies work permitting an SSO focuses first on the availability of the SSO to all workers.  If the SSO is not available to all workers, it is an accommodation.  

Second, cross-examination must establish whether the worker has more than one critical work function that requires different positions (sitting or standing/walking).  Those occupations do not have an SSO, they have the ability to choose when to perform other tasks as long as all the sitting and standing/walking tasks are done during the workday.  

Third, cross-examination or post-hearing development must establish whether the ORS classifies the critical work functions as performed sitting or standing/walking.  If the ORS classifies the work functions as standing/walking, the work does not permit an SSO.  If the ORS classifies the work functions as sitting, then the work might permit an SSO.  That might require further exploration of the first question.  

An SSO is a devastating work limitation as described in SSR 83-12.  

Unskilled types of jobs are particularly structured so that a person cannot ordinarily sit or stand at will.

An SSO for unskilled jobs should be the exception, not the rule  -- unless the Commissioner intends to rescind the statement of binding agency policy. 

The ALJ Says that the COSS Rejects the O*NET -- What do I do Now?

Our friends at SkillTran post a memorandum from SSA stating that the O*NET is not suitable for use in disability litigation.  The memorandum is in response to a request for information (RFI) dated June 4, 2004.  The question is whether this memorandum licenses the adjudicator to reject O*NET-based information without any other reason. 

As with any question, we start with the law - the statute and regulations.  The statute is silent as to the sources of vocational information.  The regulations provide for administrative notice of reliable job information from governmental and private resources.  Let's assume that in a memorandum that is not published in HALLEX or POMS that the COSS can describe a data set as not reliable.  Let's also assume that this unavailable memorandum survives the Kisor v. Wilkie test for deference or that a court would find it persuasive under Skidmore. 

The response to the RFI is clear:

SSA has determined through contracted research and through further investigation that O*NET, as it currently exists, cannot be used in SSA’s disability determination process (see Bibliography of research and investigations following).

The critical phrase from the 2004 response to the RFI is as it currently exists.  The question is whether the O*NET exists today as it did in 2004.  The O*NET has updated vocational data over every occupation for work context -- the data that Social Security representative are most interested.  Three occupations were last updated in 2004 and nine in 2005.  The other 1,004 have been updated between 2006 and 2019.  The O*NET does not exist today as it existed in 2004. 

The O*NET changed its taxonomy to version 10.0 in 2006.  The 2019 data set reflects version 24.0.  The O*NET does not exist today as it existed in 2004.  The O*NET now describes:

Occupational Requirements

A comprehensive set of variables or detailed elements that describe what various occupations require.

This domain includes information about typical activities required across occupations. Task information is often too specific to describe an occupation or occupational group. The O*NET approach is to identify generalized work activities (GWAs) and detailed work activities (DWAs) to summarize the broad and more specific types of job behaviors and tasks that may be performed within multiple occupations. Using this framework makes it possible to use a single set of descriptors to describe many occupations. Contextual variables such as the physical, social, or structural context of work that may impose specific demands on the worker or activities are also included in this section.

Generalized Work ActivitiesWork activities that are common across a very large number of occupations. They are performed in almost all job families and industries.
Intermediate Work ActivitiesWork activities that are common across many occupations. They are performed in many job families and industries.
Detailed Work ActivitiesSpecific work activities that are performed across a small to moderate number of occupations within a job family.
Organizational ContextCharacteristics of the organization that influence how people do their work
Work ContextPhysical and social factors that influence the nature of work

It is the work context description.  The physical and social factors that influence work are important to the disability analysis.  The data presentation describing the percentages of work within an occupation that require constant contact with others or very important work function of working with a group or team are exactly the kind of data that resolves holes in the DOT. 

And that brings the question back full circle to the Kisor question about deference and the Skidmore question about respect to the ability to persuade.  The Department of Labor is the agency that has the expertise to determine which of its publications constitutes the best source of information about the existence and requirements of work in the national economy.  Labor states about the DOT:

The O*Net is now the primary source of occupational information. It is sponsored by ETA through a grant to the North Carolina Department of Commerce. Thus, if you are looking for current occupational information you should use the O*Net.

Whether the DOT, SCO, O*NET, or ORS answers every question about work represents a different question than whether any of those sources answer one or more questions about the number of jobs, the erosion of the occupational base, and the requirements of work.  Which takes us back to the first Kisor question, the regulation is not ambiguous.  The COSS takes administrative notice of reliable governmental data.  The only question is whether the O*NET is reliable and if so whether is answers the specific question that we have today. 
 

Answers to Questions from the New Orleans NOSSCR Conference

20           An example of a cross or rebuttal to “no fast pace production or piece rate quota” ?

The O*NET OnLine describes pace requirement in the work setting.  The data for cashier, for example:

Environmental	%	Response
Pace Determined by Speed of Equipment — How important is it to this job that the pace is determined by the speed of equipment or machinery? (This does not refer to keeping busy at all times on this job.)	0	Extremely important
	0	Very important
	20	Important
	13	Fairly important
	67	Not important at all

So cashiers are not pace determined by speed of equipment as extremely important or very important. 

14           Can you please post your slides on your blog?

I posted from:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ors/calculation.htm

https://www.bls.gov/ors/information-for-survey-participants/pdf/occupational-requirements-survey-collection-manual-072017.pdf

9             But if you ask the VW, they will say the cashier slides the case of water across the scanner, they will say the VW is not lifting that weight.

The BLS (ORS) states that:

Series ID: ORUP1000066700000663

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of cashiers; strength is medium work

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Cashiers

Estimate: strength is medium work

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	58.6

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000066700000663

What is your basis for disagreeing with that finding. 

9             What is the citation for SVP 1 is 4hours demonstration?

https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ors/calculation.htm

5             How do counter a vocational witness that you know is not being forthcoming or honest?

I just want an answer to the question that the Supreme Court directs me to ask:  do you have a reliable methodology for extrapolating your local experience to the national economy?

5             In my experience, if my cross of the VE possibly works, the ALJ finds on another issue, so it is difficult to tell how my cross was received. How can you tell if what you are doing is winning more hearings? Are you just preserving the record for appeal?

I can do this all day long.  If the claimant has significant limitations, you can erase any occupation.  Just persevere. 

4             The payment of MEs/VEs is available through FOIA. How do you suggest we use that as a bias argument?

I don’t have to prove bias.  I have to prove that the testimony is feeble and contradicted.  Stick to what the claimant must prove. 

4             the answer VEs give to cashier lifting a case of water is that it is left in the cast & they don't have to lift it.

The BLS states that cashiers engage in medium work in most jobs, do you have a statistical basis to show that the BLS is wrong?

4             Please zoom in!

Get your free 30 days at www.occucollect.com. 

4             Has SSA formally accepted the ORS data for use in administrative hearings?

https://www.bls.gov/ors/questions-and-answers.htm Q. 1

ORS provides information about the requirements of work in the national economy conducted under an interagency agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA).

https://www.ssa.gov/disabilityresearch/occupational_info_systems.html

2             How do you know that JBP uses an equal distribution method? Where does it say that?

https://skilltran.com/index.php/support-area/documentation/223-jbp-defense

2             With the cashier issue and 60% being medium, couldn't the VE just say they could do one of the 40% that is not medium and that's still a significant number of jobs?

The 60% medium is a response to “as generally performed.”  AGP, cashiers are medium. 

If your client can perform the full range of light work, including stand/walk 7+ hours per day, the client is not disabled.  To prove disability for the sub-55 claimant, the record needs to prove a stand/walk limitation, an interaction with others limitation, or something else. 

2             Do you need to buy a subscription to Occu Collect to get all the screens you showed?

www.occucollect.com reproduces in one location the DOT, SCO, O*NET work context, O*NET work abilities, and the ORS.  You can go to four different websites and cobble the data together.  I have done it.  It takes about two hours per occupation.  If you use occucollect, it takes about 20 minutes per occupation once you have done it a handful of time.  The reports that are not available in a report format are the specialty reports that I did not cover, the Sedentary Compendium in the store, and the O*NET education training and experience report.   

2             When a VW says, "this is how the job is generally performed," when we ask about reliable method for extrapolating local experience to national economy, the VW inevitably says it is discussed at conferences, their VW chat groups, etc... how do we knock it out at that point?

What was the reliable methods used in the group?  Did you ask your chat club members about their reliable methods? 

Remember that 100 scientists got together and told the world that Einstein was wrong about relativity. 

2             If you don’t have a letter from the treating physician and the CE puts the claimant at medium. How do you come up with hypotheticals to the VE? How do we assume the amount off task in a day and/or any supportive hypothetical

The CE will typically describe a limitation to six hours of standing/walking.  Medium work requires seven or eight hours of standing/walking.  The CE might have described a limited range of motion for forward flexion.  This is sometimes a fruitful avenue.  Look for gait disturbance in the record, that might give you more. 

2             Is there a Federal Court case that you can cite where the court said the equal distribution method is not a valid way to calculate job numbers?

Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962 (2018)

Brault v. SSA Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443 (2012)

2             Which website was it in which the BLS writes that they maintain DOT only because of SSA, and that if you want reliable current data, go to the O*Net? I'd love to have that webpage so I can print it and submit in every case.

https://www.oalj.dol.gov/LIBDOT.HTM

1             What is the BLS?

Bureau of Labor Statistics

1             Good case law on VE - DOT conflict in 11th Circuit (Washington) & 4th. Extend to VE conflict with O-NET etc?

Wait for it.  This depends on Kisor v. Wilkie application to SSR 00-4p.  See the blog at:

http://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2019/07/ssr-00-4p-describing-dot-as-primary-and.html