SSR 00-4p: Rescinded

Rescinded and replaced effective January 6, 2025 by SSR 24-3p

Effective/Publication Date: 12/4/00

POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING

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, § 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:

- 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.

T 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:

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

she is not disabled.

If so, we proceed to step 5 of the sequence.

- 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, 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 .

Resolving Conflicts in Occupational Information

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 .

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:

onable 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:

y 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

lso 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 .

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.

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 .

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.

o 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

tween 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 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:

g 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.

[1] In accordance with

Acquiescence Ruling 90-3(4), we do not use VEs at step 4 of the sequential

evaluation process in the Fourth Circuit.