|
|
Post by Gaidin on Dec 27, 2022 13:35:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Dec 27, 2022 15:13:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by villedonna on Dec 27, 2022 16:16:48 GMT -5
Maybe not fraud, but when it comes to job numbers, a lot of it sure seems made up. Just ask a VE how he or she gets the job numbers. Most of the responses are laughable. Experience and education (without further support or details about what specific experience and/or education, AND testifying at SSA hearings doesn't count as experience) are not good enough answers when so much is at stake. The "Bureau of Labor Statistics" does not publish job numbers by DOT codes, yet that is what most VEs cite as their source. Some VEs testify they use the SOC code number, but each SOC code generally contains lots of jobs (multiple DOT codes), including jobs outside of the hypothetical questions asked.
Just for fun, keep a chart one week of the job numbers you get from VEs for a few jobs. If there was any factual basis behind the testimony, your numbers would be somewhat similar for each job from VE to VE. I bet you a nickel that's not what you find.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Dec 28, 2022 3:40:38 GMT -5
Maybe not fraud, but when it comes to job numbers, a lot of it sure seems made up. Just ask a VE how he or she gets the job numbers. Most of the responses are laughable. Experience and education (without further support or details about what specific experience and/or education, AND testifying at SSA hearings doesn't count as experience) are not good enough answers when so much is at stake. The "Bureau of Labor Statistics" does not publish job numbers by DOT codes, yet that is what most VEs cite as their source. Some VEs testify they use the SOC code number, but each SOC code generally contains lots of jobs (multiple DOT codes), including jobs outside of the hypothetical questions asked. Just for fun, keep a chart one week of the job numbers you get from VEs for a few jobs. If there was any factual basis behind the testimony, your numbers would be somewhat similar for each job from VE to VE. I bet you a nickel that's not what you find. SSA policy on job numbers is vague and maybe one or two FDCs have case law; it’s such a mystery. It’s easier to get remands for job descriptions than numbers as no one knows wth to do with them. Maybe that’s SSA’s goal… |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 28, 2022 18:32:27 GMT -5
I would like to see the VE process changed, but the arguments that it is fraudulent or out-of-date ring hollow. The problem is that a hide-bound bureaucracy like SSA won't get around to changing it until the change itself is obsolete.
A better system is for real VEs to testify as to what they think past work is and classify it based mostly on their experience and not pigeon-holed with a DOT#. The regs should be amended to say x is the number of national jobs required for prw, regardless of types of job (e.g, 20,000, 45,000, whatever). A VE should be asked "Does this job have more than X jobs performed nationwide?" There wouldn't need to be 3 separate jobs; one is enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Dec 29, 2022 11:09:51 GMT -5
I would like to see the VE process changed, but the arguments that it is fraudulent or out-of-date ring hollow. The problem is that a hide-bound bureaucracy like SSA won't get around to changing it until the change itself is obsolete. A better system is for real VEs to testify as to what they think past work is and classify it based mostly on their experience and not pigeon-holed with a DOT#. The regs should be amended to say x is the number of national jobs required for prw, regardless of types of job (e.g, 20,000, 45,000, whatever). A VE should be asked "Does this job have more than X jobs performed nationwide?" There wouldn't need to be 3 separate jobs; one is enough. The numbers issue at step 5 already begs the question if due process is adequately provided for at least CDR adjudications, but removing 2 of the 3 jobs really raises the due process issue. I would argue that especially under Title II for someone who has paid into SSA's insurance program should be given more consideration and due process than presently offered. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Dec 29, 2022 14:41:54 GMT -5
I don’t disagree that the DOT is outdated and that a better system should have been created by now. Something that hasn’t been updated in 30+ years cannot reflect the current labor market given the rapidity in which technology has changed the workforce over the last 30 years. It’s not great, but it’s currently all we have. There are a number of VEs that I’ve worked with who specifically deviate from the information in the DOT based on the change in work environments (i.e. an office manager is no longer performed with only occasional HFF). I’ll gladly accept their testimony when it is explained on that basis.
But it’s not the only antiquated aspect of the disability evaluation process. We continue to accept the 1980 rationale that is 52yo with a HS or college education and no cognitive limitations is incapable of performing or obtaining an entry-level sedentary occupation with an SVP of 3 or 4. Someone who was a retail store manager with a bachelor’s degree doesn’t need transferable skills to be capable of working as a telemarketer, receptionist, etc. I still apply the rules as required, but if we’re talking about being out of date, the grids are equally so.
While job numbers can vary significantly from VE to VE, in my experience, it is rarely the determining factor. For instance, if one VE says there are 150k housekeeper positions and another says 400k, then neither value is going to be insignificant to me despite the variation. Testimony about 40k storage facility rental clerks vs. 120k is not going to change my analysis. While reliability can be argued with such variance, it’s also hard for me to just throw out any numbers when no VEs have given small numbers.
The issue usually arises in sedentary, unskilled positions that require limited public contact, and this has not been a common combination of limitations from my experience over the last decade-plus. Certainly it is important to those limited under-50 individuals where it applies, but the range of most VE-supplied jobs has been not been significant factor from my experience.
If the courts eventually find that VE job data is unreliable and cannot be used to support a finding of significant jobs that exist in the national economy, then you have to try to imagine how SSA would respond to such a finding. Does SSA typically change its regulations to make disability eligibility more accessible or do the new regulations restrict eligibility? Is it going to be more advantageous to claimants when the language no longer requires a significant number of jobs but simply requires a complete inability to perform any work regardless of job data? Or even worse, when the standard is listing-level or not disabled with no RFC or work analysis required?
I tend to believe there are far more significant factors affecting disability outcomes than inconsistent VE job data or the rare provision of minimal or non-existent jobs. If you have 10 different cases and have 10 different ALJs review those cases with 10 different VEs and 10-20 different MEs testifying at the hearing, how many of those decisions will have the same findings or even the same result? There is a ton of subjectivity involved at all levels, from DDS up to the courts. At this point there isn’t a way to correct much of it, though perhaps this issue and the job data issue will be resolved in the next 10-20 years when I’m replaced by HAL 9000.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Dec 29, 2022 17:42:57 GMT -5
I don’t disagree that the DOT is outdated and that a better system should have been created by now. Something that hasn’t been updated in 30+ years cannot reflect the current labor market given the rapidity in which technology has changed the workforce over the last 30 years. It’s not great, but it’s currently all we have. There are a number of VEs that I’ve worked with who specifically deviate from the information in the DOT based on the change in work environments (i.e. an office manager is no longer performed with only occasional HFF). I’ll gladly accept their testimony when it is explained on that basis. But it’s not the only antiquated aspect of the disability evaluation process. We continue to accept the 1980 rationale that is 52yo with a HS or college education and no cognitive limitations is incapable of performing or obtaining an entry-level sedentary occupation with an SVP of 3 or 4. Someone who was a retail store manager with a bachelor’s degree doesn’t need transferable skills to be capable of working as a telemarketer, receptionist, etc. I still apply the rules as required, but if we’re talking about being out of date, the grids are equally so. While job numbers can vary significantly from VE to VE, in my experience, it is rarely the determining factor. For instance, if one VE says there are 150k housekeeper positions and another says 400k, then neither value is going to be insignificant to me despite the variation. Testimony about 40k storage facility rental clerks vs. 120k is not going to change my analysis. While reliability can be argued with such variance, it’s also hard for me to just throw out any numbers when no VEs have given small numbers. The issue usually arises in sedentary, unskilled positions that require limited public contact, and this has not been a common combination of limitations from my experience over the last decade-plus. Certainly it is important to those limited under-50 individuals where it applies, but the range of most VE-supplied jobs has been not been significant factor from my experience. If the courts eventually find that VE job data is unreliable and cannot be used to support a finding of significant jobs that exist in the national economy, then you have to try to imagine how SSA would respond to such a finding. Does SSA typically change its regulations to make disability eligibility more accessible or do the new regulations restrict eligibility? Is it going to be more advantageous to claimants when the language no longer requires a significant number of jobs but simply requires a complete inability to perform any work regardless of job data? Or even worse, when the standard is listing-level or not disabled with no RFC or work analysis required? I tend to believe there are far more significant factors affecting disability outcomes than inconsistent VE job data or the rare provision of minimal or non-existent jobs. If you have 10 different cases and have 10 different ALJs review those cases with 10 different VEs and 10-20 different MEs testifying at the hearing, how many of those decisions will have the same findings or even the same result? There is a ton of subjectivity involved at all levels, from DDS up to the courts. At this point there isn’t a way to correct much of it, though perhaps this issue and the job data issue will be resolved in the next 10-20 years when I’m replaced by HAL 9000. Seriously, I'm writing that recommendation for OCALJ right now. |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Dec 29, 2022 21:36:58 GMT -5
Maybe not fraud, but when it comes to job numbers, a lot of it sure seems made up. Just ask a VE how he or she gets the job numbers. Most of the responses are laughable. Experience and education (without further support or details about what specific experience and/or education, AND testifying at SSA hearings doesn't count as experience) are not good enough answers when so much is at stake. The "Bureau of Labor Statistics" does not publish job numbers by DOT codes, yet that is what most VEs cite as their source. Some VEs testify they use the SOC code number, but each SOC code generally contains lots of jobs (multiple DOT codes), including jobs outside of the hypothetical questions asked. Just for fun, keep a chart one week of the job numbers you get from VEs for a few jobs. If there was any factual basis behind the testimony, your numbers would be somewhat similar for each job from VE to VE. I bet you a nickel that's not what you find. Strongly disagree that VE responses are “laughable.” The VEs that have appeared in front of me - when properly cross-examined - have had entirety cogent responses based on their own professional education and most importantly their experience placing people in jobs as well as conducting job analyses of the jobs they discuss. As for the job codes - the jobs they give are representative- when it gets down to it - claimants’ reps don’t want the full answer because it turns out there are often thousands of jobs within those representative job codes. I am not saying all VEs are good - but you shouldn’t suggest that they are all bad either. And others here have appropriately pointed out that the DOT is outdated and revisions to the process are in progress. The VEs, however, are generally not the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Dec 30, 2022 3:06:56 GMT -5
When I give a hypothetical that is rather restrictive and the VE finds jobs I always follow up with, "Have you ever placed people with similar limitations in jobs?". I expect to either hear "Yes. I've placed several in similar occupations." or "I've not placed a client with those limitations but in performing (job shadowing, job surveying, job audits) I've observed people with similar limitations successfully performing such occupations." If all I get is "based on my training and experience" I'm hard pressed to accept that testimony knowing that either the AC or district court is sending in back, hopefully with some restraint in the amount of sneering disgust expressed in the opinion.
The DOT is a freaking anchor holding back a boat trying to move on.
Automation and improved user interfaces has reduced the skill level on many jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Dec 30, 2022 8:30:22 GMT -5
I sincerely appreciate the frustration on both sides and the monumental task of implementing effective change. In the meantime, if a VE includes 'addresser' as one of the 3 jobs identified, let's all agree to ask the VE to identify another job.  And Yes, VEs are using 'addresser' as an identified job - about 3 times in the last 3 months- makes it too easy for a successful appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Dec 30, 2022 9:56:46 GMT -5
Maybe not fraud, but when it comes to job numbers, a lot of it sure seems made up. Just ask a VE how he or she gets the job numbers. Most of the responses are laughable. Experience and education (without further support or details about what specific experience and/or education, AND testifying at SSA hearings doesn't count as experience) are not good enough answers when so much is at stake. The "Bureau of Labor Statistics" does not publish job numbers by DOT codes, yet that is what most VEs cite as their source. Some VEs testify they use the SOC code number, but each SOC code generally contains lots of jobs (multiple DOT codes), including jobs outside of the hypothetical questions asked. Just for fun, keep a chart one week of the job numbers you get from VEs for a few jobs. If there was any factual basis behind the testimony, your numbers would be somewhat similar for each job from VE to VE. I bet you a nickel that's not what you find. Strongly disagree that VE responses are “laughable.” The VEs that have appeared in front of me -when properly cross-examined - have had entirety cogent responses based on their own professional education and most importantly their experience placing people in jobs as well as conducting job analyses of the jobs they discuss. As for the job codes - the jobs they give are representative- when it gets down to it - claimants’ reps don’t want the full answer because it turns out there are often thousands of jobs within those representative job codes. I am not saying all VEs are good - but you shouldn’t suggest that they are all bad either. And others here have appropriately pointed out that the DOT is outdated and revisions to the process are in progress. The VEs, however, are generally not the problem. This! Agreed rp |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Dec 31, 2022 18:49:33 GMT -5
I sincerely appreciate the frustration on both sides and the monumental task of implementing effective change. In the meantime, if a VE includes 'addresser' as one of the 3 jobs identified, let's all agree to ask the VE to identify another job. And Yes, VEs are using 'addresser' as an identified job - about 3 times in the last 3 months- makes it too easy for a successful appeal. Depends on the number of jobs cited. If someone tries to tell me that there are 500k addresser jobs... yeah that's a problem. I also had a VE give a really good explanation for why a limited number of jobs that fall under the DOT description of addresser actually still exist, but can't for the life of me remember what it was. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Dec 31, 2022 19:21:33 GMT -5
Strongly disagree that VE responses are “laughable.” The VEs that have appeared in front of me -when properly cross-examined - have had entirety cogent responses based on their own professional education and most importantly their experience placing people in jobs as well as conducting job analyses of the jobs they discuss. As for the job codes - the jobs they give are representative- when it gets down to it - claimants’ reps don’t want the full answer because it turns out there are often thousands of jobs within those representative job codes. I am not saying all VEs are good - but you shouldn’t suggest that they are all bad either. And others here have appropriately pointed out that the DOT is outdated and revisions to the process are in progress. The VEs, however, are generally not the problem. This! Agreed rpI have to partially disagree. A pretty large percentage of the VEs I have dealt with cannot handle any kind of cross examination at all. |
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 2, 2023 7:01:44 GMT -5
I sincerely appreciate the frustration on both sides and the monumental task of implementing effective change. In the meantime, if a VE includes 'addresser' as one of the 3 jobs identified, let's all agree to ask the VE to identify another job. And Yes, VEs are using 'addresser' as an identified job - about 3 times in the last 3 months- makes it too easy for a successful appeal. Depends on the number of jobs cited. If someone tries to tell me that there are 500k addresser jobs... yeah that's a problem. I also had a VE give a really good explanation for why a limited number of jobs that fall under the DOT description of addresser actually still exist, but can't for the life of me remember what it was. If the VE's description comes to you, let me know. As it stands, the 'addresser' description is based on using a typewriter and hand addressing envelopes. Maybe the VE's description uses updated technology and/or another closely associated job title?? I can only share my experience that I see remands from AC and FDC based on the addresser's job description. It's a simple fix that can save money for the Agency- just ask for another job ... and assuming the rest of the decision is legally defensible. It provides a better due process for claimants and can save SSA money. On the other hand, using 'addresser' also rewards claimant's reps who are willing to go the extra mile and appeal the right decision. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jan 2, 2023 8:42:17 GMT -5
[quote author=" operationalj" source=" I also had a VE give a really good explanation for why a limited number of jobs that fall under the DOT description of addresser actually still exist, but can't for the life of me remember what it was.[/quote]If the VE's description comes to you, let me know. As it stands, the 'addresser' description is based on using a typewriter and hand addressing envelopes. Maybe the VE's description uses updated technology and/or another closely associated job title?? [/quote] “Yes - affixing pre-printed self-adhesive labels to envelopes, padded envelopes and small packages” was the testimony offered by a VE whether the job of “Addresser,” in their experience, still exists in the national economy. |
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 4, 2023 5:38:29 GMT -5
[quote author=" operationalj" source=" I also had a VE give a really good explanation for why a limited number of jobs that fall under the DOT description of addresser actually still exist, but can't for the life of me remember what it was. If the VE's description comes to you, let me know. As it stands, the 'addresser' description is based on using a typewriter and hand addressing envelopes. Maybe the VE's description uses updated technology and/or another closely associated job title?? [/quote] “Yes - affixing pre-printed self-adhesive labels to envelopes, padded envelopes and small packages” was the testimony offered by a VE whether the job of “Addresser,” in their experience, still exists in the national economy. [/quote] Thanks, pumpkin! Well, that description based on the VE's experience is better than nothing...I guess. For younger individuals, it is what it is; they have some time to figure things out. However, for the 50 and older, I would not want to be the person who has paid into the SSA's disability program (taxes) for 30 years, and the disability decision hinges on the VE finding I have transferable skills to the addresser job. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jan 4, 2023 6:30:22 GMT -5
operationalj - if your VE testifies there are transferable skills to the Addresser job, there are bigger problems afoot with that VE. According to the DOT, Addresser is an SVP 2, unskilled job. In addition to the use of a typewriter, it also contemplates addressing by hand. I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to find someone who could address a mail piece by hand could also affix a sticky label by hand - if, indeed, a vocational expert has observed the same during his or her experience in placing people in jobs. CODE: 209.587-010 TITLE(s): ADDRESSER (clerical) alternate titles: addressing clerk; envelope addresser Addresses by hand or typewriter, envelopes, cards, advertising literature, packages, and similar items for mailing. May sort mail. GOE: 07.07.02 STRENGTH: S GED: R2 M1 L2 SVP: 2 DLU: 77 Now if the RFC is sedentary AND there are also manipulative limitations to less than frequent handling and/or fingering….Houston, we have a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 4, 2023 8:54:16 GMT -5
operationalj - if your VE testifies there are transferable skills to the Addresser job, there are bigger problems afoot with that VE. According to the DOT, Addresser is an SVP 2, unskilled job. In addition to the use of a typewriter, it also contemplates addressing by hand. I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to find someone who could address a mail piece by hand could also affix a sticky label by hand - if, indeed, a vocational expert has observed the same during his or her experience in placing people in jobs. CODE: 209.587-010 TITLE(s): ADDRESSER (clerical) alternate titles: addressing clerk; envelope addresser Addresses by hand or typewriter, envelopes, cards, advertising literature, packages, and similar items for mailing. May sort mail. GOE: 07.07.02 STRENGTH: S GED: R2 M1 L2 SVP: 2 DLU: 77 Now if the RFC is sedentary AND there are also manipulative limitations to less than frequent handling and/or fingering….Houston, we have a problem. Agree - perfectly stated. |
|
|
|
Post by bagelone on Jan 4, 2023 11:32:57 GMT -5
Really uncomfortable with Lisa Rein's reporting on this. VE testimony supplements the DOT. The last version of the DOT is old, but DOL not SSA has the expertise on this, and SSA leadership probably shouldn't have spent millions outside their expertise. She could've focused on that part of the story, but her assertion that SSA is relying on outdated information, without understanding how VE testimony can supplement the DOT, sets up a false narrative. Whatever her agenda, which increasingly doesn't seem benign, she may well end up hurting both the program and the people who depend upon it.
|
|
And Yes, VEs are using 'addresser' as an identified job - about 3 times in the last 3 months- makes it too easy for a successful appeal. 
