|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 5, 2023 21:26:00 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 She could've focused on that part of the story, but her assertion that SSA is relying on outdated information, without understanding how VE testimony can supplement the DOT, sets up a false narrative.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. Except that under our rules the DOT is still considered a reliable source, so the author's point is not invalid. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jan 6, 2023 23:15:34 GMT -5
Agreed. The real reason is that if we used updated vocational sources, we would have to grant almost every unskilled sedentary case.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Jan 7, 2023 9:18:33 GMT -5
Agreed. The real reason is that if we used updated vocational sources, we would have to grant almost every unskilled sedentary case. I'm still kind of a newbie- to which 'updated vocational sources' regarding unskilled sedentary cases are you referring? |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jan 7, 2023 14:49:21 GMT -5
Check out the Hall blog discussion on this issue. From my understanding and the WAPOST article, TPTB have already spent $ on new vocational databases that weren’t implemented yet. My guess, although an educated one, is the number of unskilled sedentary jobs in current national economy is either nonexistent or paltry.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jan 7, 2023 23:14:51 GMT -5
I was a former decision writer and when I started with SSA a thousand years ago, the VEs used to give state, regional and national numbers. The sedentary numbers shrank so much, you really could not call the state numbers given "significant." So Agency policy became this is a national policy, get national numbers. Many VEs now give a "representative" job title and DOT code, but then give numbers for larger groupings of jobs. I recently had one honest VE give me three sedentary jobs and said each had about a thousand position nationwide. When I asked if she could name other jobs as well, she struggled to come up with one more.
The problem is that it does not take much to cross from unskilled to semi-skilled. Considering the tech skills most younger people have, we need to find a new way to describe work, or at least redefine the impact of basic computer skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 9, 2023 16:21:43 GMT -5
I was a former decision writer and when I started with SSA a thousand years ago, the VEs used to give state, regional and national numbers. The sedentary numbers shrank so much, you really could not call the state numbers given "significant." So Agency policy became this is a national policy, get national numbers. Many VEs now give a "representative" job title and DOT code, but then give numbers for larger groupings of jobs. I recently had one honest VE give me three sedentary jobs and said each had about a thousand position nationwide. When I asked if she could name other jobs as well, she struggled to come up with one more. The problem is that it does not take much to cross from unskilled to semi-skilled. Considering the tech skills most younger people have, we need to find a new way to describe work, or at least redefine the impact of basic computer skills. This. I had an interesting back and forth between a competent rep and VE about the document preparer position, with the VE conceding the position as described in the DOT doesn't really exist anymore but that there are numerous positions for people to scan documents. The rep pointed out that scanning software might well require more than one or two steps. The VE then responded that it's work that is typically learned in less than 30 days, and that in reality it is usually able to be learned within a single day, because most of what is involved people already know how to do from using apps and software on their phones or home computers. Sometime in the future there is going to have to be a reckoning on limiting Step 5 jobs to "unskilled", and what we mean by that. Having said that- I recently had a claimant whose past work was- drumroll- a surveillance system monitor!! So, unskilled sedentary jobs do still exist. (Of course, it's possible that claimant was actually a security guard who was lying about his past work because he thought it helped his case by saying that in his last job all he did was sit and watch a monitor all day) |
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 10, 2023 11:32:52 GMT -5
I was a former decision writer and when I started with SSA a thousand years ago, the VEs used to give state, regional and national numbers. The sedentary numbers shrank so much, you really could not call the state numbers given "significant." So Agency policy became this is a national policy, get national numbers. Many VEs now give a "representative" job title and DOT code, but then give numbers for larger groupings of jobs. I recently had one honest VE give me three sedentary jobs and said each had about a thousand position nationwide. When I asked if she could name other jobs as well, she struggled to come up with one more. The problem is that it does not take much to cross from unskilled to semi-skilled. Considering the tech skills most younger people have, we need to find a new way to describe work, or at least redefine the impact of basic computer skills. This. I had an interesting back and forth between a competent rep and VE about the document preparer position, with the VE conceding the position as described in the DOT doesn't really exist anymore but that there are numerous positions for people to scan documents. The rep pointed out that scanning software might well require more than one or two steps. The VE then responded that it's work that is typically learned in less than 30 days, and that in reality it is usually able to be learned within a single day, because most of what is involved people already know how to do from using apps and software on their phones or home computers. Sometime in the future there is going to have to be a reckoning on limiting Step 5 jobs to "unskilled", and what we mean by that. Having said that- I recently had a claimant whose past work was- drumroll- a surveillance system monitor!! So, unskilled sedentary jobs do still exist. (Of course, it's possible that claimant was actually a security guard who was lying about his past work because he thought it helped his case by saying that in his last job all he did was sit and watch a monitor all day) I like how the ALJ, rep, and VE had a productive discussion about the issue. My hope is that we can continue to have productive conversations. This forum may be the closest thing we ever have because reps, ALJs, and VEs, for the most part, have their own conversations, conferences, and forums. Nonetheless, I'm always learning from different perspectives and have always wanted a more collaborative approach and learning opportunities among disability professionals. I have had some limited success with this... hope for more. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 10, 2023 12:32:00 GMT -5
When I used to work with in person VEs I was definitely able to pick their brains between cases and learn more. That was definitely a huge help for me when I started out.
The reality is there are too many reps who just aren't good at examining the VEs, and there are too many VEs who are not good at being examined (can the agency maybe offer them a training- because I will gladly volunteer to help, and here is tip #1- just answer the frigging question that's been asked).
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Jan 10, 2023 21:42:34 GMT -5
When I used to work with in person VEs I was definitely able to pick their brains between cases and learn more. That was definitely a huge help for me when I started out. The reality is there are too many reps who just aren't good at examining the VEs, and there are too many VEs who are not good at being examined (can the agency maybe offer them a training- because I will gladly volunteer to help, and here is tip #1- just answer the frigging question that's been asked). I was lucky to have joined the ALJ Corps when in-person VE testimony was the norm. The true professionals are worth their weight in gold. I value the VEs who are willing to thoughtfully consider the hypotheticals and give an honest answer. As for the Agency providing training for the VEs…. I think I would prefer that NOSSCR provide the training. Agency training gets vetted to such an extreme that the training would likely be diluted to the point of diminishing returns. Pet peeve? Reps who follow a script regardless of VE testimony, particularly those who are trying to prove their own theories. Instead of fashioning the cross of VEs to elicit further testimony specific to that individual claimant, they use the hearing to try to further their own agenda. Claimants are your clients, they are not ammunition in your personal battle against the Agency. |
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 11, 2023 5:37:03 GMT -5
When I used to work with in person VEs I was definitely able to pick their brains between cases and learn more. That was definitely a huge help for me when I started out. The reality is there are too many reps who just aren't good at examining the VEs, and there are too many VEs who are not good at being examined (can the agency maybe offer them a training- because I will gladly volunteer to help, and here is tip #1- just answer the frigging question that's been asked). What I've learned organizing such collaborative events is that selecting the right participants is essential! On one occasion, I obviously needed to be more clear to a participant that it was not a vent session. Ugh. Learning opportunity. pumpkin is right, NOSSCR could be a good venue and they have a conference coming up in May 2023. They were looking for session proposals in December. Although it's late, I sent them a session proposal that includes something similar to what we have discussed in the thread ... productive discussion among a panel of ALJ(s), rep(s), and VE(s). I will keep you updated. |
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Jan 13, 2023 0:46:15 GMT -5
My hope is that as things get "safer" and we return to in person hearings, at some point the Agency will allow local VEs to return to the hearing rooms when they can. When I was a new judge, we had the VEs there all the time, so it was easy to have conversations. If there was a no show, or we had a couple quick hearing which resulted in a break, I would ask them questions about what they do. Several times I would ask them how I could phrase things better. Or sometimes, if one would give an answer that was different, I would ask why. It made me a much better judge.
Regarding the above, I once participated on a panel discussion with two other ALJs from my office and a couple local VEs at a state bar event. The VEs had just done an hour presentation and then we were invited up and the reps could ask anything they wanted. It was so illuminating. Frankly, there were a couple areas where the ALJs disagreed and it was interested to hear how they handled things differently and why, because we rarely have those kinds of discussions in the office.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Jan 14, 2023 6:49:10 GMT -5
I received information that NOSCCR already has the session topics for the May 2023 conference, but maybe next year we can get a panel of ALJs, VEs, and reps. In the meantime, if anyone hears of something similar, please let me know. TIA!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 15, 2023 15:30:25 GMT -5
One thing I would strongly recommend is that if you get a job you've never heard of or that sounds "odd" get the VE to explain it. Often once it's explained it makes complete sense. However, getting that explanation on the record can matter a whole lot on appeal when the Rep is arguing in federal court that the VE is making things up.
Alternatively, getting that explanation on the record let's you discount nonsensical testimony.
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Feb 19, 2023 8:48:54 GMT -5
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, so to speak... but working on a FDC brief today where ALJ found younger individual (Veteran) could perform work as an addresser. At least the numbers are somewhat realistic at less than 3000 nationally. Last week, I drafted another brief where DDS found Claimant could work as an addresser. I'm a rep that does NOT work in large mill type, take any warm body filing for disability firm so the fact that I see it 2x in 1 week shows that it happens a lot more than many ALJs realize.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 19, 2023 22:22:42 GMT -5
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, so to speak... but working on a FDC brief today where ALJ found younger individual (Veteran) could perform work as an addresser. At least the numbers are somewhat realistic at less than 3000 nationally. Last week, I drafted another brief where DDS found Claimant could work as an addresser. I'm a rep that does NOT work in large mill type, take any warm body filing for disability firm so the fact that I see it 2x in 1 week shows that it happens a lot more than many ALJs realize. That’s interesting because I don’t know whether it’s just the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon following the article’s publication, but I feel like 3-4 different VEs have cited addresser as a sedentary occupation since the article was published. I feel like I rarely got that job before this year. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 20, 2023 9:26:15 GMT -5
And I got nut sorter last week. It didn’t go well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Feb 20, 2023 10:57:56 GMT -5
And I got nut sorter last week. It didn’t go well. Since we’ve gone to non-local VEs I frequently get addresser and nut sorter. And in ridiculously low job numbers. Frustrating. |
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Feb 20, 2023 11:25:09 GMT -5
I had a rep recently who wanted the VE to discuss the article as rebuttal.
|
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Feb 20, 2023 12:28:35 GMT -5
Is this WaPo article correct—475 days from appeal (from recon) to decision?
https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/11796jf/ssa_fo_21823_washington_post_article/
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 22, 2023 23:45:18 GMT -5
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, so to speak... but working on a FDC brief today where ALJ found younger individual (Veteran) could perform work as an addresser. At least the numbers are somewhat realistic at less than 3000 nationally. Last week, I drafted another brief where DDS found Claimant could work as an addresser. I'm a rep that does NOT work in large mill type, take any warm body filing for disability firm so the fact that I see it 2x in 1 week shows that it happens a lot more than many ALJs realize. That’s interesting because I don’t know whether it’s just the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon following the article’s publication, but I feel like 3-4 different VEs have cited addresser as a sedentary occupation since the article was published. I feel like I rarely got that job before this year. It's weird, that's like the third or fourth reference to Baader-Meinhoff that I've seen recently. |
|
