At Social Security
hearings, the judge must determine whether there are any jobs available
in the US economy that the claimant might be able to perform. To make
this determination the judge will obtain testimony from a "vocational
expert" who is present.
The other day, when we came down to step 5, the judge asked the vocational expert for a list of jobs that my client might be able to perform. I thought I had heard all the unlikely jobs, like silverware wrapper, worm catcher and egg breaker. But on this day, the expert jolted me with a job I'd never heard of before. My client could be a sack repairer, the expert said.
Sure enough, looking at the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the job exists--or at least it once existed. The DOT Code is 782.687-046. Alternate job titles are bag patcher and sack mender. It's listed as a sedentary job with an Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) of 2, making it unskilled work. The DOT job description says that a bag patcher "Repairs worn or torn burlap or cloth sacks..." The job was last updated in the DOT in 1977.
Why is this not funny? Because the law gives the administrative law judge the discretion to potentially deny all Social Security disability benefits because of this antiquated job-or other jobs like it. How does a representative or attorney go about challenging a goofy job like sack mender, silverware wrapper or some other job that requires little standing or walking, no lifting, no bending, etc.? There are a couple of ways.
One way is to use any non-exertional or mental limitations of function that are demonstrated in the claimant's medical record. For instance, even bag menders must be able to remember, understand and carry out simple instructions. They have to respond appropriately to co-workers and supervisors. All jobs require the ability to remain on task up to 2 hours at a time and to maintain concentration, persistence and pace to complete an 8 hour workday 5 days a week. And a sack repairer cannot be absent more than 1 or 2 days per month and maintain employment. If a claimant is unable to maintain these functions, he or she should be found disabled according to the regulations.
Another way to attack such unlikely jobs during step 5 is to attack the credibility of the jobs. The fact that the job has not been updated for almost 40 years tells us something. So, natural questions to the vocational expert would include....
The other day, when we came down to step 5, the judge asked the vocational expert for a list of jobs that my client might be able to perform. I thought I had heard all the unlikely jobs, like silverware wrapper, worm catcher and egg breaker. But on this day, the expert jolted me with a job I'd never heard of before. My client could be a sack repairer, the expert said.
Sure enough, looking at the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the job exists--or at least it once existed. The DOT Code is 782.687-046. Alternate job titles are bag patcher and sack mender. It's listed as a sedentary job with an Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) of 2, making it unskilled work. The DOT job description says that a bag patcher "Repairs worn or torn burlap or cloth sacks..." The job was last updated in the DOT in 1977.
Why is this not funny? Because the law gives the administrative law judge the discretion to potentially deny all Social Security disability benefits because of this antiquated job-or other jobs like it. How does a representative or attorney go about challenging a goofy job like sack mender, silverware wrapper or some other job that requires little standing or walking, no lifting, no bending, etc.? There are a couple of ways.
One way is to use any non-exertional or mental limitations of function that are demonstrated in the claimant's medical record. For instance, even bag menders must be able to remember, understand and carry out simple instructions. They have to respond appropriately to co-workers and supervisors. All jobs require the ability to remain on task up to 2 hours at a time and to maintain concentration, persistence and pace to complete an 8 hour workday 5 days a week. And a sack repairer cannot be absent more than 1 or 2 days per month and maintain employment. If a claimant is unable to maintain these functions, he or she should be found disabled according to the regulations.
Another way to attack such unlikely jobs during step 5 is to attack the credibility of the jobs. The fact that the job has not been updated for almost 40 years tells us something. So, natural questions to the vocational expert would include....
- When did the DOT last update this job? (In this case, 1977).
- Have you ever placed anyone in the job of bag patcher?
- Have you ever seen this job actually performed?
- Can you name one employer who hires people to perform this job?
- How did you arrive at the number of sack mender jobs that exist in the US economy? (And there are many follow-up questions that should be added here).
Comments
Post a Comment