[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75759-75761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30701]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION


Social Security Ruling, SSR 00-4p.; Titles II and XVI: Use of 
Vocational Expert and Vocational Specialist Evidence, and Other 
Reliable Occupational Information in Disability Decisions

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Social Security Ruling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Commissioner of 
Social Security gives notice of Social Security Ruling, SSR 00-4p. This 
Ruling clarifies our standards for the use of vocational experts, 
vocational specialists, and other reliable sources of occupational 
information in the evaluation of Social Security disability claims 
under title II, Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, 
and title XVI, Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and 
Disabled, of the Social Security Act.
    In view of the clarification provided by this Ruling, AR 00-3(10) 
Haddock v. Apfel, ``Use of Vocational Expert Testimony and the 
Dictionary of Occupational Titles Under 20 CFR 404.1566, 416.966--
Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act,'' is being rescinded 
through a separate notice in the Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgia E. Myers, Regulations Officer, 
Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 
21235-6401, 1-410-965-3632 or TTY 1-800-966-5609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although we are not required to do so 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this 
Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).
    Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential 
decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, 
supplemental security income, and black lung benefits programs. Social 
Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all 
administrative levels of adjudication, Federal court decisions, 
Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General 
Counsel, and policy interpretations of the law and regulations.
    Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and 
effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all 
components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 
CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are to be relied upon as precedents in 
adjudicating cases.
    If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or 
rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that 
effect.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program Nos. 96.001, Social 
Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-Retirement 
Insurance; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors Insurance; 96.006, 
Supplemental Security Income.)

    Dated: October 27, 2000.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner of Social Security.

Policy Interpretation Ruling

Titles II and XVI: Use of Vocational Expert and Vocational 
Specialist Evidence, and Other Reliable Occupational Information in 
Disability Decisions

    Purpose: This Ruling clarifies our standards for the use of 
vocational experts (VEs) who provide evidence at hearings before 
administrative law judges (ALJs), vocational specialists (VSs) who 
provide evidence to disability determination services (DDS) 
adjudicators, and other reliable sources of occupational information in 
the evaluation of disability claims. In particular, this ruling 
emphasizes that before relying on VE or VS evidence to support a 
disability determination or decision, our adjudicators must:
     Identify and obtain a reasonable explanation for any 
conflicts between occupational evidence provided by VEs or VSs and 
information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), including 
its companion publication, the Selected Characteristics of Occupations 
Defined in the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles (SCO), 
published by the Department of Labor, and
     Explain in the determination or decision how any conflict 
that has been identified was resolved.
    Citations (Authority): Sections 216(i), 223(d)(2)(A), and 
1614(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act, as amended; 20 CFR Part 404, 
sections 404.1566-404.1569, 20 CFR Part 404, subpart P, appendix 2, 
Sec. 200.00(b), and 20 CFR Part 416, sections 416.966-416.969.
    Pertinent History: To determine whether an individual applying for 
disability benefits (except for a child applying for Supplement 
Security Income) is disabled, we follow a 5-step sequential evaluation 
process as follows:
    1. Is the individual engaging in substantial gainful activity? If 
the individual is working and the work is substantial gainful activity, 
we find that he or she is not disabled.
    2. Does the individual have an impairment or combination of 
impairments that is severe? If the individual does not have an 
impairment or combination of impairments that is severe, we will find 
that he or she is not disabled. If the individual has an impairment or 
combination of impairments that is severe, we proceed to step 3 of the 
sequence.
    3. Does the individual's impairment(s) meet or equal the severity 
of an impairment listed in appendix 1 of subpart P of part 404 of our 
regulations? If so, we find that he or she is disabled. If not, we 
proceed to step 4 of the sequence.
    4. Does the individual's impairment(s) prevent him or her from 
doing his or her past relevant work (PRW), considering his or her 
residual functional capacity (RFC)? If not, we find that he or she is 
not disabled. If so, we proceed to step 5 of the sequence.
    5. Does the individual's impairment(s) prevent him or her from 
performing other work that exists in the national economy, considering 
his or her RFC together with the ``vocational factors'' of age, 
education, and work experience? If so, we find that the individual is 
disabled. If not, we find that he or she is not disabled.
    The regulations at 20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d) provide that 
we will take administrative notice of ``reliable job information'' 
available from various publications, including the DOT. In addition, as 
provided in 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e), we use VEs and VSs as 
sources of occupational evidence in certain cases.
    Questions have arisen about how we ensure that conflicts between 
occupational evidence provided by a VE or a VS and information in the 
DOT (including its companion publication,

[[Page 75760]]

the SCO) are resolved. Therefore, we are issuing this ruling to clarify 
our standards for identifying and resolving such conflicts.

Policy Interpretation

Using Occupational Information at Steps 4 and 5

    In making disability determinations, we rely primarily on the DOT 
(including its companion publication, the SCO) for information about 
the requirements of work in the national economy. We use these 
publications at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process. We 
may also use VEs and VSs at these steps to resolve complex vocational 
issues.\1\ We most often use VEs to provide evidence at a hearing 
before an ALJ. At the initial and reconsideration steps of the 
administrative review process, adjudicators in the DDSs may rely on VSs 
for additional guidance. See, for example, SSRs 82-41, 83-12, 83-14, 
and 85-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In accordance with Acquieescence Ruling 90-3(4), we do not 
use VEs at step 4 of the sequential evaluation process in the Fourth 
Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolving Conflicts in Occupational Information

    Occupational evidence provided by a VE or VS generally should be 
consistent with the occupational information supplied by the DOT. When 
there is an apparent unresolved conflict between VE or VS evidence and 
the DOT, the adjudicator must elicit a reasonable explanation for the 
conflict before relying on the VE or VS evidence to support a 
determination or decision about whether the claimant is disabled. At 
the hearings level, as part of the adjudicator's duty to fully develop 
the record, the adjudicator will inquire, on the record, as to whether 
or not there is such consistency.
    Neither the DOT nor the VE or VS evidence automatically ``trumps'' 
when there is a conflict. The adjudicator must resolve the conflict by 
determining if the explanation given by the VE or VS is reasonable and 
provides a basis for relying on the VE or VS testimony rather than on 
the DOT information.

Reasonable Explanations for Conflicts (or Apparent Conflicts) in 
Occupational Information

    Reasonable explanations for such conflicts, which may provide a 
basis for relying on the evidence from the VE or VS, rather than the 
DOT information, include, but are not limited to the following:
     Evidence from VEs or VSs can include information not 
listed in the DOT. The DOT contains information about most, but not 
all, occupations. The DOT's occupational definitions are the result of 
comprehensive studies of how similar jobs are performed in different 
workplaces. The term ``occupation,'' as used in the DOT, refers to the 
collective description of those jobs. Each occupation represents 
numerous jobs. Information about a particular job's requirements or 
about occupations not listed in the DOT may be available in other 
reliable publications, information obtained directly from employers, or 
from a VE's or VS's experience in job placement or career counseling.
     The DOT lists maximum requirements of occupations as 
generally performed, not the range of requirements of a particular job 
as it is performed in specific settings. A VE, VS, or other reliable 
source of occupational information may be able to provide more specific 
information about jobs or occupations than the DOT.

Evidence That Conflicts With SSA Policy

    SSA adjudicators may not rely on evidence provided by a VE, VS, or 
other reliable source of occupational information if that evidence is 
based on underlying assumptions or definitions that are inconsistent 
with our regulatory policies or definitions. For example:
 Exertional Level
    We classify jobs as sedentary, light, medium, heavy and very heavy 
(20 CFR 404.1567 and 416.967). These terms have the same meaning as 
they have in the exertional classifications noted in the DOT.
    Although there may be a reason for classifying the exertional 
demands of an occupation (as generally performed) differently than the 
DOT (e.g., based on other reliable occupational information), the 
regulatory definitions of exertional levels are controlling. For 
example, if all available evidence (including VE testimony) establishes 
that the exertional demands of an occupation meet the regulatory 
definition of ``medium'' work (20 CFR 404.1567 and 416.967), the 
adjudicator may not rely on VE testimony that the occupation is 
``light'' work.
 Skill Level
    A skill is knowledge of a work activity that requires the exercise 
of significant judgment that goes beyond the carrying out of simple job 
duties and is acquired through performance of an occupation that is 
above the unskilled level (requires more than 30 days to learn). (See 
SSR 82-41.) Skills are acquired in PRW and may also be learned in 
recent education that provides for direct entry into skilled work.
    The DOT lists a specific vocational preparation (SVP) time for each 
described occupation. Using the skill level definitions in 20 CFR 
404.1568 and 416.968, unskilled work corresponds to an SVP of 1-2; 
semi-skilled work corresponds to an SVP of 3-4; and skilled work 
corresponds to an SVP of 5-9 in the DOT.
    Although there may be a reason for classifying an occupation's 
skill level differently than in the DOT, the regulatory definitions of 
skill levels are controlling. For example, VE or VS evidence may not be 
relied upon to establish that unskilled work involves complex duties 
that take many months to learn, because that is inconsistent with the 
regulatory definition of unskilled work. See 20 CFR 404.1568 and 
416.968.
 Transferability of Skills
    Evidence from a VE, VS, or other reliable source of occupational 
information cannot be inconsistent with SSA policy on transferability 
of skills. For example, an individual does not gain skills that could 
potentially transfer to other work by performing unskilled work. 
Likewise, an individual cannot transfer skills to unskilled work or to 
work involving a greater level of skill than the work from which the 
individual acquired those skills. See SSR 82-41.

The Responsibility To Ask About Conflicts

    When a VE or VS provides evidence about the requirements of a job 
or occupation, the adjudicator has an affirmative responsibility to ask 
about any possible conflict between that VE or VS evidence and 
information provided in the DOT. In these situations, the adjudicator 
will:
     Ask the VE or VS if the evidence he or she has provided 
conflicts with information provided in the DOT; and
     If the VE's or VS's evidence appears to conflict with the 
DOT, the adjudicator will obtain a reasonable explanation for the 
apparent conflict.

Explaining the Resolution

    When vocational evidence provided by a VE or VS is not consistent 
with information in the DOT, the adjudicator must resolve this conflict 
before relying on the VE or VS evidence to support a determination or 
decision that the individual is or is not disabled. The adjudicator 
will explain in the determination or decision how he or she resolved 
the conflict. The adjudicator must explain the resolution of the

[[Page 75761]]

conflict irrespective of how the conflict was identified.
    Effective Date: This Ruling is effective on the date of its 
publication in the Federal Register. The clarified standard stated in 
this ruling with respect to inquiring about possible conflicts applies 
on the effective date of the ruling to all claims for disability 
benefits in which a hearing before an ALJ has not yet been held, or 
that is pending a hearing before an ALJ on remand. The clarified 
standard on resolving identified conflicts applies to all claims for 
disability or blindness benefits on the effective date of the ruling.
    Cross-References: SSR 82-41, ``Titles II and XVI: Work Skills and 
Their Transferability as Intended by the Expanded Vocational Factors 
Regulations Effective February 26, 1979,'' SSR 82-61, ``Titles II and 
XVI: Past Relevant Work--The Particular Job or the Occupation as 
Generally Performed,'' SSR 82-62, ``Titles II and XVI: A Disability 
Claimant's Capacity to Do Past Relevant Work, In General,'' SSR 83-10, 
``Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability to Do Other Work--The 
Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2,'' SSR 83-12, ``Titles II and 
XVI: Capability to Do Other Work--The Medical-Vocational Rules as a 
Framework for Evaluating Exertional Limitations Within a Range of Work 
or Between Ranges of Work,'' SSR 83-14, ``Titles II and XVI: Capability 
to do Other Work--The Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for 
Evaluating a Combination of Exertional and Nonexertional Impairments,'' 
and SSR 85-15, ``Titles II and XVI: Capability to Do Other Work--The 
Medical-Vocational Rules as a Framework for Evaluating Solely 
Nonexertional Impairments''; AR 90-3(4), 837 F.2d 635 (4th Cir. 1987)-
Use of Vocational Experts or Other Vocational Specialist in Determining 
Whether a Claimant Can Perform Past Relevant Work--Titles II and XVI of 
the Social Security Act; Program Operations Manual System, Part 04, 
sections DI 25001.001, DI 25005.001, DI 25020.001-DI 25020.015, and DI 
25025.001-DI 25025.005.

[FR Doc. 00-30701 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-U