SACK MENDER AND OTHER OBSOLETE JOBS
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 considering his age, education, past relevant work experience and residual functional capacity. To make this determination the judge will obtain testimony from a "vocational expert."
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--silverware wrapper, worm catcher, egg breaker, surveillance system monitor... But on this day, the expert jolted me with a job I'd never heard of before: Sack mender.
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 rapairer. 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 deny all Social Security disability benefits because of this antiquated job or other goofy jobs like it, just because they are still listed in the obsolete Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).* How does a representative or attorney go about challenging a loony job like sack mender that requires little standing or walking, no lifting, no bending, no ability to read or write, 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 might include....
_____________________
*The Dictonary of Occupational Titles (DOT) was invented during the Great Depression to help the US Government identify jobs that existed in the US economy to help unemployed persons find work. This obsolete manual has not been published since the early 1990s. Many of the jobs listed and described in the DOT have not been updated in the past 50 years. It should be given a decent burial.
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--silverware wrapper, worm catcher, egg breaker, surveillance system monitor... But on this day, the expert jolted me with a job I'd never heard of before: Sack mender.
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 rapairer. 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 deny all Social Security disability benefits because of this antiquated job or other goofy jobs like it, just because they are still listed in the obsolete Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT).* How does a representative or attorney go about challenging a loony job like sack mender that requires little standing or walking, no lifting, no bending, no ability to read or write, 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 might 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 chould be added here).
_____________________
*The Dictonary of Occupational Titles (DOT) was invented during the Great Depression to help the US Government identify jobs that existed in the US economy to help unemployed persons find work. This obsolete manual has not been published since the early 1990s. Many of the jobs listed and described in the DOT have not been updated in the past 50 years. It should be given a decent burial.
Comments
Post a Comment