SSR 24-3p: Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational Information and Vocational Specialist and Vocational Expert Evidence in Disability Determinations and Decisions.

FederalRulings

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Social Security Rulings › DI › Vocational › SSR 24-3p

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

Effective Date: January 6, 2025 Federal Register Vol. 89,

No. 235, page 97158

Policy Interpretation Ruling SSR 24-3p: Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational Information

and Vocational Specialist and Vocational Expert Evidence in

Disability Determinations and Decisions. This SSR rescinds and replaces SSR 00-4p : Titles II and XVI:

Use of Vocational Expert and Vocational Specialist Evidence,

and Other Reliable Occupational Information in Disability Decisions. Citations (Authority): Sections 216(i) , 223(d)(2)(A) , and 1614(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act, as amended and 20 CFR 404.1560 , 404.1566 - 404.1569 , Part 404 Subpart P Appendix 2 , 416.960 , and 416.966 - 416.969 . Dates: We will apply this notice on January 6, 2025. [1] Purpose: When we make disability determinations

and decisions, we may ask impartial vocational specialists (VS)

or vocational experts (VE) to provide evidence about work. VSs and

VEs give us evidence tailored to the specific facts of the cases about

which we consult them, based on their professional knowledge, training,

and experience and the vocational data available to them. In 2000, we issued SSR

00-4p , which explains that, before relying on VS and VE evidence to

support a disability decision, our adjudicators must (1) identify and

obtain a reasonable explanation for any conflicts between occupational

information provided by a VS or VE 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 ; and (2) explain in the

determination or decision how any conflict that has been identified

was resolved. We continue to recognize the DOT as a valid and reliable source

of occupational information, and we will continue to use it in

adjudication. However, we acknowledge that the DOT is not the

only reliable source of occupational information

the

Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles ; and (2) explain in the

determination or decision how any conflict that has been identified

was resolved. We continue to recognize the DOT as a valid and reliable source

of occupational information, and we will continue to use it in

adjudication. However, we acknowledge that the DOT is not the

only reliable source of occupational information. We note that

recent federal statistical data relating to work in the

national economy uses the Standard Occupational Classification

(SOC) system [2] and that the SOC system for classifying

occupations is different from that of the DOT. The requirements

of SSR 00-4p make it difficult to use

these other sources, because it is not clear how a VS, VE or adjudicator

can fulfill the requirement to identify and resolve conflicts with the DOT

when primarily using a data source that is, structurally, very different

from the DOT. We do not want to discourage use of occupational information

that is reliable and commonly used in the vocational profession. In

addition, our adjudicative experience since we issued SSR

00-04p has

shown that requiring our adjudicators, VSs, and VEs to identify and

explain conflicts with the DOT is time consuming. At the hearing level,

the requirements of SSR 00-4p have

led to unnecessary remands to resolve

apparent conflicts that were not identified at the hearing when the VE

testified, and the requirements of SSR 00-4p might discourage VSs and

VEs from using occupational data in sources other than the DOT. This ruling explains our standard for evaluating whether

vocational evidence is sufficient to support a determination or

decision. We are rescinding SSR 00-04p and will no longer require our adjudicators to identify and resolve

conflicts between occupational information provided by VSs and VEs and

information in the DOT. Pertinent History: We use a five-step sequential

evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled

ting whether

vocational evidence is sufficient to support a determination or

decision. We are rescinding SSR 00-04p and will no longer require our adjudicators to identify and resolve

conflicts between occupational information provided by VSs and VEs and

information in the DOT. Pertinent History: We use a five-step sequential

evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled. We

may use VS or VE evidence at steps four and five in that process. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, we consider

whether an individual, given their residual functional capacity

(RFC), can perform any of their past relevant work (PRW) either

as the individual actually performed it or as the work is

generally performed in the national economy. If we find that

the individual can perform any of their PRW, we will find that

the individual is not disabled. If the individual cannot

perform any of their PRW, we go to the fifth step of the

sequential evaluation process. At step five of the sequential evaluation process, we consider

whether an individual's impairment(s) prevents them from

adjusting to other work that exists in significant numbers in

the national economy, considering their RFC and the vocational

factors of age, education, and work experience. If we find that

the individual cannot adjust to other work, we will find that

the individual is disabled. If we find that the individual can

adjust to other work, we will find that the individual is not

disabled. In appropriate instances, we use the medical-vocational

guidelines to decide whether work exists in the national

economy

onal

factors of age, education, and work experience. If we find that

the individual cannot adjust to other work, we will find that

the individual is disabled. If we find that the individual can

adjust to other work, we will find that the individual is not

disabled. In appropriate instances, we use the medical-vocational

guidelines to decide whether work exists in the national

economy. [3] When an individual's RFC and vocational factors of

age, education, and work experience correspond to a rule in the

medical-vocational guidelines, that rule applies and directs a

decision of “disabled” or “not disabled.”

Where our finding of fact about an individual's RFC or a vocational

factor does not correspond precisely to a medical-vocational rule,

the guidelines provide a framework to guide our decision-making. Our regulations state that we will take administrative notice

of reliable job information. [4] In certain cases, we use VSs and

VEs as sources of job-related evidence [5] including evidence

about whether an individual's work skills can be used in other

work, the specific occupations in which they can be used, or a

similarly complex issue. VSs and VEs provide expert vocational

evidence and rely on the publications listed in 20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d) or other reliable sources of

occupational information. VEs and VSs may use any reliable

source of occupational information that is commonly used by

vocational professionals and is relevant under our rules, along

with their professional knowledge, training, and experience.

VEs and VSs may use a combination of these sources when

providing occupational evidence. Adjudicators must weigh the VE

or VS evidence in the context of the overall record and

determine whether it can support a conclusion at step four or

step five. Policy Interpretation: The DOT Our rules, such as regulatory terms and definitions, and our

guidance are controlling for our adjudicators

VEs and VSs may use a combination of these sources when

providing occupational evidence. Adjudicators must weigh the VE

or VS evidence in the context of the overall record and

determine whether it can support a conclusion at step four or

step five. Policy Interpretation: The DOT Our rules, such as regulatory terms and definitions, and our

guidance are controlling for our adjudicators. The DOT, which,

as noted above, we continue to take administrative notice of as

a reliable source, corresponds to many of our rules and

guidance. For example, the maximum requirements of occupations

as generally performed in the DOT correspond directly to our

rules and guidance. We classify jobs as sedentary, light,

medium, heavy, and very heavy, using the same meaning as those

terms have in the DOT. Our categorization of skills also

corresponds with the DOT. The DOT lists a specific vocational

preparation (SVP) level for each occupation it describes. Our

skill level definitions in 20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968 , of

unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled work as corresponding to

DOT SVP levels of 1 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 to 9. VS and VE Occupational Evidence We may also ask a VS or VE to provide evidence concerning a

variety of case-specific factual issues. A VS or VE may offer

evidence concerning the physical and mental demands of an

individual's past relevant work, either as actually performed

by the individual or as generally performed in the national

economy, [6] evidence concerning whether an individual's work

skills can be used in other work and the specific occupations

in which they can be used, or evidence regarding similarly

complex issues. [7] We may ask VSs and VEs to offer examples of

other occupations an individual can perform. Additionally, VEs

may offer estimates of the number of jobs that exist in the

national economy in such occupations. [8] We do not dictate any

specific approach to estimating job numbers, and the numbers

provided are only general estimates

be used, or evidence regarding similarly

complex issues. [7] We may ask VSs and VEs to offer examples of

other occupations an individual can perform. Additionally, VEs

may offer estimates of the number of jobs that exist in the

national economy in such occupations. [8] We do not dictate any

specific approach to estimating job numbers, and the numbers

provided are only general estimates. Our adjudications are

non-adversarial, [9] and we process millions of cases each year. Our

adjudicators must determine whether VS or VE evidence is

adequate to decide the claim and must do so efficiently.

VSs and VEs may provide evidence based on their professional

experience and any reliable source of occupational information

that is commonly used in the vocational profession and relevant

under our rules. VSs and VEs are in the best position to

determine the most appropriate sources of data to support the

evidence they offer. We expect VSs and VEs to identify the

sources of the data they use and, where applicable, to explain

their general approach to estimating job numbers. If the VS or

VE uses a data source that defines exertion, education, or

skill levels differently than our regulations, we

expect the VS or VE to explain the difference. We may instruct

VSs or VEs to address other concerns as needed. For example,

VSs and VEs should identify and explain if they cite an

occupation that is performed in a different way than identified

in the source of data they used. Because VEs and VSs are

impartial and qualified professionals whom we consult because

of their expertise, a more detailed inquiry into the sources of

data or approaches used is not usually required. At the hearing

level, when the claimant is represented, we expect the

representative to raise any relevant questions or challenges

about the VE's testimony at the time of the hearing and to

assist in developing the record through appropriate questions

to the VE

ult because

of their expertise, a more detailed inquiry into the sources of

data or approaches used is not usually required. At the hearing

level, when the claimant is represented, we expect the

representative to raise any relevant questions or challenges

about the VE's testimony at the time of the hearing and to

assist in developing the record through appropriate questions

to the VE. [10] Based on the vocational evidence in the case and

the record overall, an adjudicator will determine whether the

evidence provided by a VS or VE is adequate to support a

decision at step four or five. Some sources of occupational data use definitions of exertion

level, skill level, and education level that align closely with

our program rules. The DOT is such a source. If a VS or VE uses

a source that defines exertion, skill, or education level

differently than our program rules, we expect the VS or VE to

acknowledge the difference and explain whether or how they have

accounted for the difference. In addition, the VS or VE may cite to multiple acceptable

sources of occupational data that do not precisely correspond

to each other. In some instances, it may be necessary for the

VS or VE to explain how they accounted for the differences in

classification. For example, Federal agencies that collect

occupational data now use the SOC system. One difference

between the DOT and the SOC system is that the SOC system

aggregates occupational data at a higher level. While there are

some SOC codes that correspond to a single DOT code, other SOC

codes may correspond to a large

number of DOT codes. [11] VSs and VEs may rely on occupational

sources that use the SOC system. Examples of these data sets

include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS),

and the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS)

some SOC codes that correspond to a single DOT code, other SOC

codes may correspond to a large

number of DOT codes. [11] VSs and VEs may rely on occupational

sources that use the SOC system. Examples of these data sets

include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS),

and the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS). For example, VEs may cite occupations from the DOT but derive

estimates of job numbers from the OEWS when providing evidence

to us in our hearings process. Because the DOT uses a different classification taxonomy from

the SOC system, VEs would need to explain the general approach

of how they compared the DOT data to the data about estimates

of job numbers in OEWS, a SOC-based classification system. [12] In

this example, the VE could address the SOC group for the

corresponding DOT code and explain how the estimates of job

numbers for the specific occupation are derived from the

overall numbers for the SOC group. A detailed inquiry is not

required, but if a VE does not provide any explanation about

the general approach, our adjudicators should ask them to

provide one. Consider the following illustration: at a hearing, an ALJ

presents a hypothetical question to a VE regarding a younger

individual with a high school education and no transferable

skills, who can perform a reduced range of light work. The VE

explains that the DOT and OEWS are the data sources used for

the testimony. The VE then testifies that the hypothetical

individual can perform work in the DOT occupation of Fast-Foods

Worker (DOT Code 311.472-010). The VE relies on their

experience along with published comparisons between the DOT and

SOC [13] to identify the closest related SOC

group as 35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers

ains that the DOT and OEWS are the data sources used for

the testimony. The VE then testifies that the hypothetical

individual can perform work in the DOT occupation of Fast-Foods

Worker (DOT Code 311.472-010). The VE relies on their

experience along with published comparisons between the DOT and

SOC [13] to identify the closest related SOC

group as 35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers. The VE explains

that five additional DOT occupations crosswalk to the same SOC

group, [14] and that OEWS data shows there are 3,325,050 jobs

nationally for the Fast Food and Counter Workers SOC group. [15] Considering the limitations in the hypothetical question, the

VE explains that the Fast-Foods Worker (DOT Code 311.472-010)

occupation occurs more frequently in the labor market than the

other five DOT jobs in the same SOC group. Then, the VE states

that the Fast-Food Worker occupation accounts for 1,300,000

jobs in the SOC group. The VE explains that the response was

based on the VE's experience, training, observation of how the

job is performed in multiple settings and industries, and

familiarity with the job market estimates. Adjudicator Responsibilities Our adjudicators are responsible for evaluating the VS or VE

evidence within the context of the overall evidence in the

claim. If the VS or VE does not provide the expected

information and explanation outlined above, the adjudicator

will usually need to develop the record with sufficient

evidence to make a supported finding at step four or step five

of the sequential evaluation process. [16] [1] We will use this SSR beginning on its applicable date. We

will apply this SSR to new applications filed on or after the

applicable date of the SSR and to claims that are pending on or

after the applicable date. This means that we will use this SSR

on and after its applicable date in any case in which we make a

determination or decision

ive

of the sequential evaluation process. [16] [1] We will use this SSR beginning on its applicable date. We

will apply this SSR to new applications filed on or after the

applicable date of the SSR and to claims that are pending on or

after the applicable date. This means that we will use this SSR

on and after its applicable date in any case in which we make a

determination or decision. We expect that Federal courts will

review our final decisions using the rules that were in effect

at the time we issued the decisions. If a court reverses our

final decision and remands a case for further administrative

proceedings after the applicable date of this SSR, we will

apply this SSR to the entire period at issue in the decision we

make after the court's remand. [2] During the 1980s and 1990s, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) led the effort to standardize various occupational

classification systems then in use across the federal

government with a SOC system to “promote a common language for

categorizing occupations in the world of work.” 62 FR 36338,

36338 (July, 1997), available at https://www.bls.gov/soc/2000/frn-july-7-1997.pdf . [3] 20 CFR part 404 subpart P appendix 2. [4] 20 CFR 404.1566(d) and 416.966(d) . [5] 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e) . [6] 20 CFR 404.1560(b)(2) and 416.960(b)(2) . [7] 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e) . [8] See 20 CFR 404.1566(e) and 416.966(e) .

See also 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 96-9p Titles II and XVI: Determining

Capability to Do Other Work — Implications of a Residual Functional

Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work. [9] 20 CFR 404.900(b) and 416.1400(b)

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 96-9p Titles II and XVI: Determining

Capability to Do Other Work — Implications of a Residual Functional

Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work. [9] 20 CFR 404.900(b) and 416.1400(b) .

The rules of evidence used

in federal courts do not apply. 42 U.S.C. 405(b)(1). [10] 20 CFR 404.1740 and 416.1540 .

Raising relevant questions about or challenges to the VE's testimony at

the time of the hearing, when the VE is ready and available to answer them,

furthers the efficient, fair, and orderly conduct of the

administrative decision-making process. [11] For example, SOC 11-9171 Funeral Home, Manager matches to

one DOT Code 187.167-030 Funeral Director; however, SOC 51-9061

Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers matches to

782 DOT codes. [12] If VEs rely only on sources that use the same classification

systems, then they do not need to provide a crosswalk. For

example, if a VE uses ORS and OEWS, which both use the SOC

system, then no crosswalk is necessary. Similarly, if a VE

relies only on the DOT, no crosswalk is necessary. The DOT,

however, does not provide information about job numbers. [13] When OMB mandated the SOC system for occupational data

collection, Federal agencies developed crosswalks from the

existing taxonomies to the SOC. 64 FR 53136, 53139 (1999),

available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-09-30/pdf/99-25445.pdf .

The DOT crosswalk file is available at https://www.onetcenter.org/crosswalks.html . [14] The other five DOT codes are: DOT Code 311.477-014 Counter

Attendant, Lunchroom or Coffee Shop; DOT Code 311.477-038

Waiter/Waitress, Take Out; DOT Code 311.674-010 Canteen

Operator; DOT Code 311.677-014 Counter Attendant, Cafeteria;

DOT Code 319.474-010 Fountain Server. [15] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. OEWS, May 2022

e is available at https://www.onetcenter.org/crosswalks.html . [14] The other five DOT codes are: DOT Code 311.477-014 Counter

Attendant, Lunchroom or Coffee Shop; DOT Code 311.477-038

Waiter/Waitress, Take Out; DOT Code 311.674-010 Canteen

Operator; DOT Code 311.677-014 Counter Attendant, Cafeteria;

DOT Code 319.474-010 Fountain Server. [15] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. OEWS, May 2022. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353023.htm [16] Our determinations and decisions are based on the

preponderance of the evidence standard. See 20 CFR 404.902 , 404.920 , 404.953 , 416.1402 , 416.1420 , and 416.1453 . Back to Table of Contents

SSR 24-3p: Titles II and XVI: Use of Occupational Information