George Piemonte, NOSSCR 11th Circuit Board Representative

Cross-Examining Vocational Experts in the Age of SSR 24-3p: A Call to Action for Representatives

In conversations with many representatives about cross-examining vocational witnesses under SSR 24-3p, I often hear a familiar refrain: “ALJs will never let me do that.” Or some variation of it. But let’s be clear—no one ever said practicing law would be easy. We weren’t taught in law school to avoid difficult tasks. We were trained to advocate, to challenge, and to uphold our duty to our clients, especially those who are disabled and depend on us.

Under the current legal framework, failing to cross-examine a vocational witness when their testimony supports denial of benefits is, in my view, a failure of representation—and potentially malpractice. This doesn’t mean you must cross-examine in every case, especially when the outcome is clearly in your client’s favor. But when the vocational witness testifies that your client can perform jobs based on the ALJ’s first or second hypothetical—hypotheticals that often mirror the final RFC finding—you must act.

At a minimum, your cross-examination should demand specificity. Ask the VE to identify the exact sources used to derive job numbers. The Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics publish a wide range of data. Don’t accept vague references or jargon-laden responses. Pin them down:

• Did they use the OEWS, ORS, O*NET, Job Browser Pro, or US Publishing?
• Are their numbers based on SOC codes?
• Were the numbers manipulated or adjusted in any way?
• If you replicate their method, will you arrive at the same figures?

After the hearing, verify their claims. Follow the steps they described. More often than not, you’ll find discrepancies. When that happens, submit a post-hearing brief to the ALJ, clearly documenting the inconsistencies and providing your own verified data.

Some ALJs may resist your efforts to cross-examine. Stand firm. Request a supplemental hearing so you may fully question the vocational witness. If you’re interrupted or denied the opportunity, calmly and professionally state:

“For the record, please note my exception that you are instructing me not to fully develop the record regarding the vocational testimony as SSR 24-3p requires me to do.”

Then stop. You’ve preserved the issue for appeal—and courts are unlikely to look favorably on an ALJ who obstructs a representative’s duty to develop the record.

The implementation of SSR 24-3p has raised the stakes for representatives advocating on behalf of disabled claimants. It is no longer acceptable to passively accept vocational testimony without scrutiny. Your role is to challenge, verify, and, when necessary, expose inaccuracies that could unjustly cost your client their benefits. This is not just about legal strategy—it’s about fulfilling your ethical obligation to represent those who rely on your expertise zealously. Be prepared, be persistent, and above all, be fearless in the pursuit of truth on behalf of your clients.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.