Discussion: View Thread

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Somebody's bright idea? We are using a resource that has been out of development for decades.  It is already difficult to determine if a claimant is actually qualified by training and experience for a technical or skilled occupation.  With a five year history few of the claimants with skilled or technical occupations would show qualification without additional testimony. Then of course, while technical occupations change and develop significantly over 5 years, few unskilled and semi-skilled occupations change so much that qualifications also change, e.g. Cashiers?

 

I tried to leave a comment on-line.  There is another challenge for us.  What more can I say?

 

Best regards,

Jeff Barrett, M.Ed., CAP. CRC, CVE, CCM
Options Plus

optionsplusinc.com
954-929-9694


The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained herein may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail reply, do not produce copies of this transmission or any attachments, and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

 

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Why is SSA motivated to radically increase awards?  Artificially ignoring skills developed in skilled or semi-skilled work performed over five years would not only be illogical to any vocational expert, HR Professional, employer (or even to a lay person), but will only surely increase disability awards. When something sounds crazy it is sometimes crazy like a fox. 

Somebody's bright idea? We are using a resource that has been out of development for decades.  It is already difficult to determine if a claimant is actually qualified by training and experience for a technical or skilled occupation.  With a five year history few of the claimants with skilled or technical occupations would show qualification without additional testimony. Then of course, while technical occupations change and develop significantly over 5 years, few unskilled and semi-skilled occupations change so much that qualifications also change, e.g. Cashiers?

 

I tried to leave a comment on-line.  There is another challenge for us.  What more can I say?

 

Best regards,

Jeff Barrett, M.Ed., CAP. CRC, CVE, CCM
Options Plus

optionsplusinc.com
954-929-9694


The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained herein may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail reply, do not produce copies of this transmission or any attachments, and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

 

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Why is SSA motivated to radically increase awards?  Artificially ignoring skills developed in skilled or semi-skilled work performed over five years would not only be illogical to any vocational expert, HR Professional, employer (or even to a lay person), but will only surely increase disability awards. When something sounds crazy it is sometimes crazy like a fox. 

Somebody's bright idea? We are using a resource that has been out of development for decades.  It is already difficult to determine if a claimant is actually qualified by training and experience for a technical or skilled occupation.  With a five year history few of the claimants with skilled or technical occupations would show qualification without additional testimony. Then of course, while technical occupations change and develop significantly over 5 years, few unskilled and semi-skilled occupations change so much that qualifications also change, e.g. Cashiers?

 

I tried to leave a comment on-line.  There is another challenge for us.  What more can I say?

 

Best regards,

Jeff Barrett, M.Ed., CAP. CRC, CVE, CCM
Options Plus

optionsplusinc.com
954-929-9694


The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained herein may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail reply, do not produce copies of this transmission or any attachments, and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

 

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Circling back to my original post on this, I am adding that the private sector has not- in most cases- recognized the 15-year rule as a fast and sound criterion for examining one's transferable skills and current day labor market appropriateness.  Imo, any number of years for such across the board is at best capricious.  The proposal for "5 years" may present an opportunity for SSA to examine their entire premise on this point.  

I am curious as to IARP's sense and ability to make a statement as coming from the Association itself, and/or from the Forensic Section in particular, in addition to some of its members. 

As noted by Lisa Anderson, at a minimum, we are all taxpayers who will pay for the vast new number of claimants who would benefit from this capricious "rule," rather than on the merit of truly disabling conditions within the labor market.   

Why is SSA motivated to radically increase awards?  Artificially ignoring skills developed in skilled or semi-skilled work performed over five years would not only be illogical to any vocational expert, HR Professional, employer (or even to a lay person), but will only surely increase disability awards. When something sounds crazy it is sometimes crazy like a fox. 

Somebody's bright idea? We are using a resource that has been out of development for decades.  It is already difficult to determine if a claimant is actually qualified by training and experience for a technical or skilled occupation.  With a five year history few of the claimants with skilled or technical occupations would show qualification without additional testimony. Then of course, while technical occupations change and develop significantly over 5 years, few unskilled and semi-skilled occupations change so much that qualifications also change, e.g. Cashiers?

 

I tried to leave a comment on-line.  There is another challenge for us.  What more can I say?

 

Best regards,

Jeff Barrett, M.Ed., CAP. CRC, CVE, CCM
Options Plus

optionsplusinc.com
954-929-9694


The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained herein may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail reply, do not produce copies of this transmission or any attachments, and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

 

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Circling back to my original post on this, I am adding that the private sector has not- in most cases- recognized the 15-year rule as a fast and sound criterion for examining one's transferable skills and current day labor market appropriateness.  Imo, any number of years for such across the board is at best capricious.  The proposal for "5 years" may present an opportunity for SSA to examine their entire premise on this point.  

I am curious as to IARP's sense and ability to make a statement as coming from the Association itself, and/or from the Forensic Section in particular, in addition to some of its members. 

As noted by Lisa Anderson, at a minimum, we are all taxpayers who will pay for the vast new number of claimants who would benefit from this capricious "rule," rather than on the merit of truly disabling conditions within the labor market.   

Why is SSA motivated to radically increase awards?  Artificially ignoring skills developed in skilled or semi-skilled work performed over five years would not only be illogical to any vocational expert, HR Professional, employer (or even to a lay person), but will only surely increase disability awards. When something sounds crazy it is sometimes crazy like a fox. 

Somebody's bright idea? We are using a resource that has been out of development for decades.  It is already difficult to determine if a claimant is actually qualified by training and experience for a technical or skilled occupation.  With a five year history few of the claimants with skilled or technical occupations would show qualification without additional testimony. Then of course, while technical occupations change and develop significantly over 5 years, few unskilled and semi-skilled occupations change so much that qualifications also change, e.g. Cashiers?

 

I tried to leave a comment on-line.  There is another challenge for us.  What more can I say?

 

Best regards,

Jeff Barrett, M.Ed., CAP. CRC, CVE, CCM
Options Plus

optionsplusinc.com
954-929-9694


The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained herein may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail reply, do not produce copies of this transmission or any attachments, and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

 

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Circling back to my original post on this, I am adding that the private sector has not- in most cases- recognized the 15-year rule as a fast and sound criterion for examining one's transferable skills and current day labor market appropriateness.  Imo, any number of years for such across the board is at best capricious.  The proposal for "5 years" may present an opportunity for SSA to examine their entire premise on this point.  

I am curious as to IARP's sense and ability to make a statement as coming from the Association itself, and/or from the Forensic Section in particular, in addition to some of its members. 

As noted by Lisa Anderson, at a minimum, we are all taxpayers who will pay for the vast new number of claimants who would benefit from this capricious "rule," rather than on the merit of truly disabling conditions within the labor market.   

Why is SSA motivated to radically increase awards?  Artificially ignoring skills developed in skilled or semi-skilled work performed over five years would not only be illogical to any vocational expert, HR Professional, employer (or even to a lay person), but will only surely increase disability awards. When something sounds crazy it is sometimes crazy like a fox. 

Somebody's bright idea? We are using a resource that has been out of development for decades.  It is already difficult to determine if a claimant is actually qualified by training and experience for a technical or skilled occupation.  With a five year history few of the claimants with skilled or technical occupations would show qualification without additional testimony. Then of course, while technical occupations change and develop significantly over 5 years, few unskilled and semi-skilled occupations change so much that qualifications also change, e.g. Cashiers?

 

I tried to leave a comment on-line.  There is another challenge for us.  What more can I say?

 

Best regards,

Jeff Barrett, M.Ed., CAP. CRC, CVE, CCM
Options Plus

optionsplusinc.com
954-929-9694


The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained herein may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail reply, do not produce copies of this transmission or any attachments, and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

 

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work

Circling back to my original post on this, I am adding that the private sector has not- in most cases- recognized the 15-year rule as a fast and sound criterion for examining one's transferable skills and current day labor market appropriateness.  Imo, any number of years for such across the board is at best capricious.  The proposal for "5 years" may present an opportunity for SSA to examine their entire premise on this point.  

I am curious as to IARP's sense and ability to make a statement as coming from the Association itself, and/or from the Forensic Section in particular, in addition to some of its members. 

As noted by Lisa Anderson, at a minimum, we are all taxpayers who will pay for the vast new number of claimants who would benefit from this capricious "rule," rather than on the merit of truly disabling conditions within the labor market.   

Why is SSA motivated to radically increase awards?  Artificially ignoring skills developed in skilled or semi-skilled work performed over five years would not only be illogical to any vocational expert, HR Professional, employer (or even to a lay person), but will only surely increase disability awards. When something sounds crazy it is sometimes crazy like a fox. 

Somebody's bright idea? We are using a resource that has been out of development for decades.  It is already difficult to determine if a claimant is actually qualified by training and experience for a technical or skilled occupation.  With a five year history few of the claimants with skilled or technical occupations would show qualification without additional testimony. Then of course, while technical occupations change and develop significantly over 5 years, few unskilled and semi-skilled occupations change so much that qualifications also change, e.g. Cashiers?

 

I tried to leave a comment on-line.  There is another challenge for us.  What more can I say?

 

Best regards,

Jeff Barrett, M.Ed., CAP. CRC, CVE, CCM
Options Plus

optionsplusinc.com
954-929-9694


The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained herein may be privileged and confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail reply, do not produce copies of this transmission or any attachments, and delete this message and its attachments, if any.

 

Good morning everyone:

SSA is proposing changes to the definition of past relevant work, from 15 years to 5 years. Below is the link and there are directions on how to comment. I encourage everyone to provide comments. Do remember comments are public and will be published. 

https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2023-21557/intermediate-improvement-to-the-disability-adjudication-process-including-how-we-consider-past-work