|
Post by mikeinthehills on Mar 5, 2020 12:30:39 GMT -5
The changes to the grid rules eliminates the "presumption" that someone who is unable to communicate in English is directed to be found disabled. The grid rule change does not eliminate illiteracy as a vocational factor. Old grid rule 201.17 would direct us to find a claimant disabled who was 46, unable to communicate in English and limited to sedentary work. With the grid rule eliminated, we could ask the VE if someone who was illiterate in English (not a person who was unable to communicate in English) could perform any sedentary work in the national economy. I've never had a VE opine that there are not a significant number of jobs in the economy for someone of those abilities. But I don't think we need to ask specifically any more. This is what the new regulation asserts:
"(i) While illiteracy may significantly limit an individual’s vocational scope, the primary work functions in most unskilled occupations involve working with things (rather than with data or people). In these work functions, education has the least significance. * * * Thus, the functional capacity for a full range of sedentary work represents sufficient numbers of jobs to indicate substantial vocational scope for those individuals age 18–44, even if they are illiterate."
Where it gets interesting is at light at 202.09 where a claimant is approaching advanced age and has unskilled or no past work and is unable to communicate in English. Under the old rule, if a claimant was "illiterate or unable to communicate in English," we were directed to find the claimant disabled. Under the new rule, the inability to communicate in English has been removed from the rule, but not illiteracy. Isn't a claimant who can't read or write English due to a language barrier functionally illiterate in English? Does the revised 202.09 still direct a finding of disabled for someone who can't read or write English due to a language barrier as being illiterate, or is someone not illiterate if they can read and write in their native language? The latter reading doesn't seem to make sense. But the former reading means there has not been a practical change to the rule. It may not be what was intended, but it's there in black and white. It will be interesting to see how this is clarified.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Mar 5, 2020 13:23:53 GMT -5
I know you folks want to hammer this out, but my experience has taught me that this won't work. I'm not taking any legal logic for granted until a judge points it out in a decision. Common sense is not common.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Mar 5, 2020 14:57:35 GMT -5
As I sarcastically suggested in my initial post, ain't it grand that the application and implication of this change is not readily obvious to all of us presumably intelligent, dedicated, experienced judges.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 5, 2020 16:17:16 GMT -5
Why is there any discussion here? Haven't you all reviewed the crystal clear guidance we've been given? Because it's interesting! By the way, I am amazed how many people work 20-30 years in a diverse workforce, but speak little or no English. They now get a boost in claims over immigrants who learned English and had the same work history. Even when they live in Puerto Rico.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Mar 6, 2020 14:17:30 GMT -5
Where it gets interesting is at light at 202.09 where a claimant is approaching advanced age and has unskilled or no past work and is unable to communicate in English. Under the old rule, if a claimant was "illiterate or unable to communicate in English," we were directed to find the claimant disabled. Under the new rule, the inability to communicate in English has been removed from the rule, but not illiteracy. Isn't a claimant who can't read or write English due to a language barrier functionally illiterate in English? Does the revised 202.09 still direct a finding of disabled for someone who can't read or write English due to a language barrier as being illiterate, or is someone not illiterate if they can read and write in their native language? The latter reading doesn't seem to make sense. But the former reading means there has not been a practical change to the rule. It may not be what was intended, but it's there in black and white. It will be interesting to see how this is clarified. Soon to be published SSR 20-01P puts this question to rest. See: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/09/2020-04668/social-security-ruling-ssr-20-01p-how-we-determine-an-individuals-education-categoryFor those of you who just want the quick answer, the new official rule is functional literacy in the claimant's native language = literacy for the purpose of the grid rules. It's also very enlightening that the SSR made it crystal clear that we should consider anyone with a fourth grade education or higher to be functionally literate absent very specific evidence to the contrary. Looks like the writing is on the wall here.
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on Mar 9, 2020 16:20:14 GMT -5
The agency has answered. From SSR 20-01p on the new language regulation:
We consider an individual illiterate if he or she cannot read or write a simple message, such as instructions or inventory lists, even though the individual can sign his or her name.[13] We will assign an individual to the illiteracy category only if the individual is unable to read or write a simple message in any language.
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Mar 9, 2020 19:40:21 GMT -5
Where it gets interesting is at light at 202.09 where a claimant is approaching advanced age and has unskilled or no past work and is unable to communicate in English. Under the old rule, if a claimant was "illiterate or unable to communicate in English," we were directed to find the claimant disabled. Under the new rule, the inability to communicate in English has been removed from the rule, but not illiteracy. Isn't a claimant who can't read or write English due to a language barrier functionally illiterate in English? Does the revised 202.09 still direct a finding of disabled for someone who can't read or write English due to a language barrier as being illiterate, or is someone not illiterate if they can read and write in their native language? The latter reading doesn't seem to make sense. But the former reading means there has not been a practical change to the rule. It may not be what was intended, but it's there in black and white. It will be interesting to see how this is clarified. Soon to be published SSR 20-01P puts this question to rest. See: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/09/2020-04668/social-security-ruling-ssr-20-01p-how-we-determine-an-individuals-education-categoryFor those of you who just want the quick answer, the new official rule is functional literacy in the claimant's native language = literacy for the purpose of the grid rules. It's also very enlightening that the SSR made it crystal clear that we should consider anyone with a fourth grade education or higher to be functionally literate absent very specific evidence to the contrary. Looks like the writing is on the wall here. Years ago, I was told that newspapers were written for 6th grade reading level. I have tried to follow that tip since then. Why does SSA think it is a 4th grade level? Google any major newspaper on the issue and they are all 6th grade or higher. readable.com/blog/why-is-newspaper-readability-important/
|
|
|
Post by statman on Mar 10, 2020 0:03:19 GMT -5
The SSA does not think you need to be able to read newspapers, All you need is to be able to listen to Fox News,
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Apr 12, 2020 18:59:15 GMT -5
Re: the earlier posts in this thread about AI decisionmakers-- The mere fact that an AI decisionmaker is not human, even if it is proved to be more accurate and superior in every way, is it's biggest obstacle. ALJs were created in response to lack of public confidence in the appeals system. Just as important as accuracy is public confidence in the system. I think most people would want a human being a judge, and the replacement of that human being with a "machine" would be an affront to their sense of a fair hearing. That is, until AI is so prevalent in our society that human beings are willing to be judged by code.
|
|
|
Post by nothingtoseehere on Apr 13, 2020 7:38:03 GMT -5
|
|