At the last step of a Social Security disability decision, an administrative law judge may rely on a vocational expert to identify jobs a claimant can still perform. Some job descriptions come from an older federal publication and may not resemble modern work. In Noll v. Bisignano, decided October 16, 2026, a federal district court examined what an ALJ did before relying on a document-preparer occupation challenged as obsolete.
The jobs identified at step five
Jessica Noll pursued an SSI claim based on conditions that included a right below-the-knee amputation, a left toe amputation, diabetes, neuropathy, depression, and anxiety. The ALJ found that she could perform a limited range of sedentary work, including use of a cane, and that she had no past relevant work.
A vocational expert identified the occupations of polisher, table worker, and document preparer. The ALJ relied on those occupations and found Noll not disabled. In federal court, Noll argued in part that document preparer was obsolete and that the ALJ had failed to obtain the additional evidence required by current Social Security guidance.
Current performance required a current explanation
The court discussed Social Security Emergency Message 24027 REV. As applied in this case, the guidance barred reliance on certain identified occupations without additional vocational testimony about how the job is currently performed, whether its requirements fit the claimant’s RFC, and whether it exists in significant numbers alone or together with other cited work.
The ALJ had asked the vocational expert for additional testimony about the modern document-preparer occupation and expressly referred to that testimony in the decision. The court found the process sufficient and noted that courts in similar cases had accepted a vocational expert’s experience as a basis for current-performance testimony. It affirmed the denial and did not remand or award benefits.
Develop the vocational issue at the hearing
A job title alone may not answer whether the work still exists in a recognizable form. Useful questions can address the job’s current tasks and tools, the settings where it is performed, the sources and methods behind job-number estimates, and whether the modern job fits every accepted limitation. The record should preserve both the answer and its factual basis.
A claimant should also identify why the issue affects the result. If one occupation is questionable, the other cited occupations and their combined numbers may still support step five. The challenge is stronger when it connects the vocational uncertainty to the exact RFC and explains why the remaining evidence is insufficient.
Noll is a district-court decision applying deferential substantial-evidence review. It does not establish that every older occupational title remains usable, or that professional experience always supplies enough explanation. Agency guidance and occupational resources can change, so the rules in effect for the actual decision should be checked.
Source: Noll v. Bisignano, No. 1:25-CV-2227, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236384 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2026).
Learn more about Feden Law Group’s disability practice. If you need help reviewing a Social Security denial or hearing record, you may schedule an initial consultation with an attorney.
You can also explore the FLG Claim Analyst (Beta).
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it or requesting a consultation does not create an attorney-client relationship.