The vocational expert did not comply with the requirements of Social Security Ruling 24- 3p, and the Administrative Law Judge did not otherwise obtain the needed information (see also HALLEX
New Social Security Ruling 24-3p
Social Security has issued Ruling 24-3p, entitled: Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational Information and Vocational Specialist and Vocational Expert Evidence in Disability Determinations and Decisions. The Ruling became effective January 6, 2025.
The new Ruling rescinds and replaces Ruling 00-4p. The new Ruling follows two emergency messages from last year
OTR Request based on new PRW Rule
If you have a claimant awaiting at the hearing level who was denied benefits by DDS at Step 4 due to the ability to perform a past job, and that job was last performed more than 5 years ago, that job no longer counts as PRW.
Take a look at the case to see if
SSA issues two new Emergency Messages regarding certain occupations at Step 5
Social Security released EM-24026, entitled: Isolated Occupations We Will Not Use to Support a “Not Disabled” Finding at Step Five of the Sequential Evaluation Process and EM-24027, entitled: Guidance Regarding the Citation of Certain Occupations at Step Five of the Sequential Evaluation Process.
These two Emergency Messages are steps toward addressing the outdated
5-year period for PRW now in effect
The new 5-year period for past relevant work (PRW) becomes effective today. New DDS determinations and ALJ decisions will only evaluate 5 years of past work. The 5 years runs from the date of adjudication (or the date last insured, if earlier). See 20 C.F.R. 404.1565(a) and Ruling 24-2p.
In the world of Social
Social Security issues Ruling 24-1p “Titles II and XVI: How We Apply Medical-Vocational Profiles”
New Ruling 24-1p addresses three medical-vocational “profiles” that are occasionally applicable in disability claims. The profiles are considered at Step 5 of the sequential evaluation. If you meet the criteria of the profile at Step 5, you will be found disabled under Social Security’s rules. This new Ruling recinds and replaces Ruling 82-63.
The first
5-year PRW Rule delayed 2 weeks
On April 18, 2024, Social Security published a final rule revising the period for Past Relevant Work (PRW) from 15 years to 5 years. That published rule contained an implementation date of June 8, 2024.
A notice in today’s Federal Register delayed implementation of the new rule by two weeks. The new rule will now
New PRW Rule will eclipse Barnhart v. Thomas
In Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003), the Supreme Court held that past relevant work (PRW) does not have to exist in significant numbers in the national economy to be considered at Step 4 of the Social Security sequential evaluation.
Here is the story: Pauline Thomas worked as an elevator operator for
PRW reduced to 5 years
Social Security published a final rule in today’s Federal Register, reducing the period for past relevant work (PRW) from 15 years to 5 years. The rule becomes effective June 8, 2024.
Step 4 of the disability sequential evaluation considers a person’s ability to perform their past relevant work (both as actually performed and as generally
Missed days at work – Sczepanski v. Saul
There is an interesting wrinkle on the issue of missed days at work in the Second Circuit case of Sczepanski v. Saul, 946 F. 3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2020). That case probably merits wider attention.
During the ALJ hearing in that case, the vocational witness was asked about tolerated levels of missed days, specifically