Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

R ANDOLPH G . B ACHRACH
ATTORNEY AT LAW

5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 Tel: (602) 852-9540 Fax: (602) 840-0318 (AZ #12621 - CA #93278)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States District Court
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DAVID L. MAZET, Plaintiff, vs. HALLIBURTON COMPANY LONGTERM DISABILITY PLAN; and, HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

No.: CV 04 0493 PHX FJM SUR-RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND TO THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR DE NOVO REVIEW

With permission of the Court (Docket # 88), Plaintiff submits the following surresponse. Defendants have filed their "corrected" sur-reply which goes far beyond the invitation of this Court to simply correct the confusion caused by "misconstru[ing] its own calculations." (Id.) The "corrected" sur-reply substitutes an entirely new set of exhibits and refers to both sets of exhibits as if both are properly before the Court. (Docket # 85; Docket # 89-2.) Further, the "corrected" sur-reply makes numerous substantive additions and omissions relative to the original sur-reply. Many of the arguments in the "corrected" surreply are arguably incomprehensible; those which are comprehensible, are wrong. This Court has previously found that Hartford abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily and in its self-interest as both Plan fiduciary and Plan insurer. (Docket # 76, pgs 4-6.) This Court's finding constitutes sufficient basis justifying a review that gives little or no deference to Hartford, i.e., de novo review. "When an administrator engages in wholesale and flagrant violations of the procedural requirements of ERISA, and thus acts in utter
Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 1 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
ATTORNEY AT LAW 5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85018 S (602) 852-9540

disregard of the underlying purpose of the plan as well, we review de novo the administrator's decision to deny benefits." Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 971 (9th Cir. 2006). Hartford confuses its "claim file" with the "administrative record" when it accuses Plaintiff of going "outside of the administrative record."1 (Docket # 89, pg. 4:7.) In his Reply (re: Motion to Remand, etc.) Plaintiff referenced and attached a copy of the published 2003 (U.S. Dept. of Labor Occupational Employment Statistics ) ("OES") Wage data. (Docket # 81, pg. 11.) There are numerous references in the administrative record to the OES Wage data (as relied upon by Hartford throughout the claim and appeal process). Thus, OES Wage data is indisputably part of the administrative record. (See, e.g., CF-00231["Hourly Wage Required: $15.63 Using National OES data"]; CF-00205 ["The above noted wage information is derived from the 2001 Estimated Median Wage following an adjustment to reflect estimated wages for 2003."]; Docket # 85, pg. 8 ["NATIONAL OES WAGE DATA: Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks, SOC Code: 43-5061"]; Docket #84, pg. 3.) Hartford has never disputed that it relied upon OES Wage data in its decision to terminate Mr. Mazet's LTD benefits and in conducting its "employability survey" on remand. Thus, Hartford's "objection" to this data is overtly disingenuous. Hartford may have failed or neglected to insert actual copies of this data in its claim file; nevertheless, the administrative record sufficiently identifies the data to have incorporated it into the record. Similarly, when a medical consultant reviews medical records in forming an opinion (and such records are referred to in the consultant's report), the reviewed documents are inherently deemed to have been incorporated into the administrative record, irregardless of whether or not actual copies of the reviewed documents are physically placed into the claim file. Hartford's suggestion to the contrary, is both wrong and nonsensical.

RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hartford's original sur-reply contained no objections of any kind to Plaintiff's reference, in his Reply brief, to OES Wage data. (Docket # 84.) Plaintiff, thus, requests that this objection be either stricken from the record or overruled.

1

2
Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 2 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
ATTORNEY AT LAW 5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85018 S (602) 852-9540

Relying upon the OES Wage data, Hartford claimed in its initial decision that the identified occupations "all show monthly earnings of $3,103.03." (Docket # 81, exh. 1.) The actual published 2003 OES data clearly reveals this statement to have been patently false. Indeed, Hartford's "employability" consultant claims to have "adjusted" the 2001 "estimated median wage" data for this category of occupations in arriving at that figure. (Docket # 81, exh. 2.) Nothing in the record supports that claim. Rather, according to the actual published data (November 2003 OES Wage report) the estimated median wage for this category of occupations was only $35,260/annual, or, $2,938.33/monthly. (Docket # 81, exh. 3.) The amount of Hartford's calculation (on remand) of Mr. Mazet's January 2003 "indexed" predisability earnings is $3,089.51 -- which exceeds the 2003 OES wage data (published 10 months later) by approx. $150/mo. (Docket # 80, pg. 5:27.) It cannot be reasonably disputed by these irrefutable facts that Mr. Mazet's benefits were wrongfully terminated in February 2003. It is also abundantly clear why Hartford now seeks to eliminate from the record the actual OES wage data upon which it then claimed to have relied to support its February 2003 decision. It is very apparent that Hartford continues to act, not as an ERISA fiduciary, rather, as a self-interested insurance company seeking to minimize its claims exposure. Further, Hartford has chosen to disobey the Order of this Court (Docket # 76, pg. 5:11) limiting the scope of review on remand to the record existing at the time of the initial denial: During the initial claims process, Hartford determined that Mazet was capable of performing five occupations, all of which had monthly earnings potential of $3,103.03. DSOF ¶ 29. This information remains relevant to the continuing benefits eligibility determination. It is clear from the Order that this Court intended that the remand review be limited to the relevant wage and occupation facts, as existed in 2003, at the time of the original decision to deny benefits. Yet, Hartford admits that it "did not rely solely upon its 2003 employability assessment." (Docket # 89, pg. 3:10.) Rather, Hartford proceeded to "update" its EAR with

RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

3
Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 3 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
ATTORNEY AT LAW 5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85018 S (602) 852-9540

2006 OES Wage data, for this group of occupations.2 (Docket # 89, pg. 3:20.) Apparently, Hartford would like us to believe that there is something fair about comparing 2006 estimated wages to Mr. Mazet's 2003 indexed predisability earnings. It is not, of course. Again, however, the published statistics belie Hartford's distorted calculations and findings. The actual data proves that Mr. Mazet was, and continues to be, entitled to LTD benefits. Hartford's consultants utilized both the OES Wage data and the published Consumer Price Index ("CPI"), in making its decisions. Thus, both of these data are inherently part of this record and are presented to assist the Court in making a fully informed decision in this case. The data further exposes Hartford's continuing abuse of discretion. The following chart is compiled from the actual published OES and CPI data, which Hartford claims to have relied upon. It reveals that Hartford's calculations have been significantly skewed to its benefit. The Policy required that "indexed" earnings be calculated from the date of disability: "[t]he adjustment is made January 1st each year after you have been Disabled for 12 consecutive months" and is ". . . the difference between the current year's CPI-W as of July 31, and the prior year's CPI-W as of July 31, divided by the prior year's CPI-W." (Docket # 78, pg. 3.) Mr. Mazet disability began in August 2000. Thus, after 12 months (Aug. 2001), his predisability earnings should have been adjusted by subtracting the prior year CPI-W (Aug. 2000) from the current year CPI-W (Aug. 2001), and, applying the result on January 1, 2002. The actual published CPI data (Exhibit 1, attached) shows that this period saw an increase of 4.5%, not, 2.6%, as Hartford claims. (Docket # 80, pg. 5:20.) The actual published data shows that Mr. Mazet has continuously (2001-2006) been entitled to LTD benefits.3

RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Although Hartford, without explanation, has omitted its "updated" EAR from the exhibits accompanying its "corrected" sur-reply, Hartford continues to rely upon it for purposes of opposition to Plaintiff's pending motion. (Docket # 89, pgs. 3-4.) Plaintiff acknowledges that wage and occupation data after 2003 are not part of the administrative record but is compelled to respond to the arguments in Defendants' "corrected" sur-reply referencing 2006 data, and expecting the Court to disregard same.
3

2

4
Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 4 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6

CPI calculation date per Policy (POL-00025) 1999 wages3 Aug 20005 Aug 20016

Index (See Exhibit 1)

% increase

60% of Predisability Earnings $2972.574

Predisability Earnings as % of est. median wages

169.300 173.800 4.5 $3106.34 (See below) $3193.32 (See below) $3311.47 (See below) $3467.11 (See below) $3713.27 (See below) $3991.76 (See below) 87% of 2001 est. median wage ($2701.67)7 88% of 2002 est. median wage ($2804.17)8 88% of 2003 est. median wage ($2901.67)9 87% of 2004 est. median wage ($3028.33)10 84% of 2005 est. median wage ($3132.50)11 81% of 2006 est. median wage ($3218.80)12

7

Aug 2002

176.600

2.8

8

Aug 2003

180.300

3.7

9
ATTORNEY AT LAW 5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85018 S (602) 852-9540

Aug 2004

185.000

4.7

RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH

10

Aug 2005

192.100

7.1

11

Aug 2006

199.600

7.5

3

Per the Policy, predisability earnings are calculated as of prior Oct. (10/1999). (See POL-00025; Docket # 78, pg. 9.) See, Docket # 78, pg. 9, ¶ 2. Mr. Mazet's injury and disability date was in August 2000.

4

5

Per the Policy, the first CPI adjustment is calculated "after you have been disabled for 12 consecutive months" (here, 8/2000 -- 8/2001). (See POL-00025.)
7

6

(Exhibit 2, pg. 1, 2001 OES Wage data, attached.) (Exhibit 2, pg. 2, 2002 OES Wage data, attached.) (Exhibit 2, pg. 3, 2003 OES Wage data, attached.) (Exhibit 2, pg. 4, 2004 OES Wage data, attached.) (Exhibit 2, pg. 5, 2005 OES Wage data, attached.) (Exhibit 2, pg. 6, 2006 OES Wage data, attached.)

8

9

10

11

12

-5Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 5 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

8/2000-8/2001 CPI-W 173.800 -169.300 4.5 4954.29 x .045 = 222.94; 4954.29 + 222.94 = 5177.23 [x 60% = 3106.34] 8/2001-8/2002 CPI-W 176.600 -173.800 2.8 5177.23 x .028 = 144.96; 5177.23 + 144.96 = 5322.19 [x 60% = 3193.32] 8/2002-8/2003 CPI-W 180.300 -176.600 3.7 5322.19 x .037 = 196.92; 5322.19 + 196.92 = 5519.11 [x 60% = 3311.47]

8/2003-8/2004 CPI-W 185.000 -180.300 4.7 5519.11 x .047 = 259.40; 5519.11 + 259.40 = 5778.51 [x 60% = 3467.11] 8/2004-8/2005 CPI-W 192.100 -185.000 7.1 5778.51 x .071 = 410.27; 5778.51 + 410.27 = 6188.78 [x 60% = 3713.27] 8/2005-8/2006 CPI-W 199.600 -192.100 7.5 6188.78 x .075 = 464.16; 6188.78 + 464.16 = 6652.94 [x 60% = 3991.76]

ATTORNEY AT LAW 5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85018 S (602) 852-9540

RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH

Hartford claims that "[f]or the first time in his Reply, Plaintiff also argues that Hartford's estimate of Plaintiff's present earning potential was not well-founded." (Docket # 89, pg. 4:5.) This is not correct. Plaintiff extensively briefed this issue in his Motion for Judgment. (Docket # 21, pgs. 2-4.) Hartford responded (in part) to this claim and issue: Mr. Mazet concedes in his motion that the median wage for these positions in 2001 was $2,710 per month, which is only $4.46 below the necessary level of $2,714.46. In 2002, according to Mr. Mazet, the wage increased to $2,804 per month. And Hartford estimated the wage for 2003 would increase to $3,101.03. (Docket # 27, pg. 14:11.) Since the time of motions for judgment, Hartford has recalculated Mr. Mazet's predisability earnings, taking into account his 401(k) contributions. And, Hartford claims to have "indexed" Mr. Mazet's predisability earnings. The result is that Mr. Mazet was definitely qualified to receive "any occupation" disability benefits under the Plan because at no time (2001-2006) has his indexed predisability earnings ever exceeded 88% of the estimated median wage for the identified occupations. This fact could not be made more certain than by Hartford's response (re Motion for Judgment, supra), which agreed that the estimated -6Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 6 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
ATTORNEY AT LAW 5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85018 S (602) 852-9540

median wage (2001) for these occupations "is only $4.46 below the necessary level of $2,714.46" (i.e., Mr. Mazet's then incorrect and under-calculated predisability earnings amount). To the point, the "necessary level" Hartford refers to, was much higher than Hartford was then claiming -- as Hartford now admits: "For the period July 1, 2001 through January 31, 2003 Mr. Mazet should have been paid using the new gross monthly benefit of $2,972.57 versus the prior benefit of $2,714.40." (Docket # 78, pg. 9, ¶ 4.) Although Hartford previously took comfort in pointing out that the 2001 estimated median wages were "only $4.46 below the necessary level of $2,714.46" (Docket # 27, pg. 14:11), in fact, the disparity was much greater (approx. $260.00), even before the indexing of Mr. Mazet's predisability earnings. (See chart, above; also, Docket # 80, pg. 5:19.) Finally, Hartford raises a "red herring." Hartford claims that Plaintiff has misrepresented the data by ". . .presenting the Court with a print-out from the U.S. Department of Labor with data on a single occupational category ­ to the exclusion of all others." (Docket # 89, pg. 4:7.) This argument simply makes no sense. The "category" to which Hartford refers is, in fact, the "category" which Hartford claimed had occupations (five, to be exact), which were deemed "close" matches to Mr. Mazet's functional capacities.13 It is Hartford that chose this "category," and the specific (5) occupations within it, to support its decision -- not, Mr. Mazet. (Docket # 78, Exh. 1, pg. 2.) The specific "category" to which these occupations belong (per the U.S. Dept. of Labor) is that of "Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks." (Docket # 85, pg. 8.) The DOL (O*NET) code for this category is 43-5061. (Id.) According to Hartford's consultant, Mr. Melendez (who prepared the 2003 EAR), there are 61 occupations within this category: "Preliminary Crosswalk shows this DOT Occupation [Assignment Clerk] is 1 of 61 DOT's under this O*NET Code ." (Docket # 89-2, pg. 20.) Defendant argues that "Plaintiff's handselection

RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

The assertion that in preparing its "updated" EAR, Hartford "took into consideration Plaintiff's current functional capabilities as reported by his attending physician" (Docket # 89, pg. 3:15), is untrue. Hartford has no such current information and merely relied upon very old, and likely irrelevant, occupational reports dating from 2002, contained in the original claim file. (Docket # 89-2, pg. 3, EAR: Jan. 30, 2003.)

13

-7Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 7 of 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

of one occupational category (for which plaintiff likely would be over-qualified and in which he likely would be substantially underpaid) is not an appropriate measure of Plaintiff's earning potential. . ." (Docket # 89, pg. 4:16.) The notion that Plaintiff cherry-picked this category is ridiculous. This is more evidence that Hartford's conflict of interest has infected its decision-making and role as Plan fiduciary. Respectfully submitted: DATED: August 7, 2008 RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH Attorney at Law

ATTORNEY AT LAW 5103 E. THOMAS ROAD PHOENIX, AZ 85018 S (602) 852-9540

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

By s/Randolph G. Bachrach Randolph G. Bachrach, Esq. 5103 E. Thomas Road Phoenix, Arizona 85018 Attorney for Plaintiff I hereby certify that on August 7, 2008 I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
Steve Bressler Ricki L. Cohen LEWIS & ROCA, LLP 40 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3329 Attorneys for Defendants

RANDOLPH G. BACHRACH

26

s/Randolph G. Bachrach

-8Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 8 of 17

EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 9 of 17

Consumer Price Index (CPI-W)

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/cpiw.html

Social Security Online
Office of the Chief Actuary

Automatic Increases
CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) on a monthly basis. We use the CPI-W to annually adjust benefits paid to Social Security beneficiaries.

Cost-Of-Living Adjustment Average CPI

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) (1982-84=100) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1974 46.900 47.500 48.000 48.300 48.800 49.300 49.700 50.300 50.900 51.400 51.800 52.200 1975 52.400 52.800 53.000 53.200 53.500 53.900 54.500 54.700 54.900 55.300 55.600 55.800 1976 56.000 56.100 56.200 56.500 56.800 57.100 57.400 57.700 57.900 58.200 58.300 58.500 1977 58.900 59.500 59.800 60.300 60.600 61.000 61.300 61.500 61.800 61.900 62.200 62.500 1978 62.800 63.200 63.700 64.300 64.900 65.600 66.000 66.400 66.800 67.400 67.700 68.100 1979 68.700 69.500 70.300 71.100 71.900 72.800 73.700 74.400 75.100 75.700 76.400 77.200 1980 78.300 79.400 80.500 81.400 82.300 83.200 83.300 83.800 84.600 85.300 86.100 86.900 1981 87.500 88.500 89.000 89.600 90.300 91.100 92.200 92.800 93.700 93.900 94.100 94.400 1982 94.700 95.000 94.800 95.200 96.200 97.400 98.000 98.200 98.300 98.600 98.400 98.000 1983 98.100 98.100 98.400 99.000 99.500 99.800 100.100 100.500 101.000 101.200 101.200 101.200 1984 101.600 101.800 101.800 102.100 102.500 102.800 103.200 104.200 104.800 104.800 104.700 104.800 1985 104.900 105.400 105.900 106.300 106.700 107.000 107.100 107.300 107.600 107.900 108.300 108.600 1986 108.900 108.500 107.900 107.600 107.900 108.400 108.400 108.600 109.100 109.100 109.200 109.300 1987 110.000 110.500 111.000 111.600 111.900 112.400 112.700 113.300 113.800 114.100 114.300 114.200 1988 114.500 114.700 115.100 115.700 116.200 116.700 117.200 117.700 118.500 118.900 119.000 119.200 1989 119.700 120.200 120.800 121.800 122.500 122.800 123.200 123.200 123.600 124.200 124.400 124.600 1990 125.700 126.400 127.100 127.300 127.500 128.300 128.700 129.900 131.100 131.900 132.200 132.200 1991 132.800 132.800 133.000 133.300 133.800 134.100 134.300 134.600 135.200 135.400 135.800 135.900 1992 136.000 136.400 137.000 137.300 137.600 138.100 138.400 138.800 139.100 139.600 139.800 139.800 1993 140.300 140.700 141.100 141.600 141.900 142.000 142.100 142.400 142.600 143.300 143.400 143.300 1994 143.600 144.000 144.400 144.700 144.900 145.400 145.800 146.500 146.900 147.000 147.300 147.200 1995 147.800 148.300 148.700 149.300 149.600 149.900 149.900 150.200 150.600 151.000 150.900 150.900 1996 151.700 152.200 152.900 153.600 154.000 154.100 154.300 154.500 155.100 155.500 155.900 155.900 1997 156.300 156.800 157.000 157.200 157.200 157.400 157.500 157.800 158.300 158.500 158.500 158.200 1998 158.400 158.500 158.700 159.100 159.500 159.700 159.800 160.000 160.200 160.600 160.700 160.700 1999 161.000 161.100 161.400 162.700 162.800 162.800 163.300 163.800 164.700 165.000 165.100 165.100 2000 165.600 166.500 167.900 168.000 168.200 169.200 169.400 169.300 170.400 170.600 170.900 170.700 2001 171.700 172.400 172.600 173.500 174.400 174.600 173.800 173.800 174.800 174.000 173.700 172.900 2002 173.200 173.700 174.700 175.800 175.800 175.900 176.100 176.600 177.000 177.300 177.400 177.000 2003 177.700 179.200 180.300 179.800 179.400 179.600 179.600 180.300 181.000 180.700 180.200 179.900 2004 180.900 181.900 182.900 183.500 184.700 185.300 184.900 185.000 185.400 186.500 186.800 186.000 2005 186.300 187.300 188.600 190.200 190.000 190.100 191.000 192.100 195.000 195.200 193.400 192.500 2006 194.000 194.200 195.300 197.200 198.200 198.600 199.200 199.600 198.400 197.000 196.800 197.200 2007 197.559 198.544 200.612 202.130 203.661 203.906 203.700 203.199 203.889 204.338 205.891 205.777 2008 206.744 207.254 209.147 210.698 212.788 215.223

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM
1 of 2

Document 90

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 10 of 17

8/3/2008 8:19 PM

EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 90 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 11 of 17

Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2001/oes435061.htm

S p N avi gati on Li nks ki

U.S. Department of Labor
www.bls.gov

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Occupational Employment Statistics Advanced Search | A-Z Index

BLS Home | Programs & Surveys | Get Detailed Statistics | Glossary | What's New | Find It! In DOL

RELATED OES LINKS

2001 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks Coordinate and expedite the flow of work and materials within or between departments of an establishment according to production schedule. Duties include reviewing and distributing production, work, and shipment schedules; conferring with department supervisors to determine progress of work and completion dates; and compiling reports on progress of work, inventory levels, costs, and production problems. Exclude "Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping" (43-5111). 2001 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates These estimates are calculated with data collected from employers in all industry divisions in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in every State and the District of Columbia. These and other data elements, including the 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentile wages are available in the downloadable excel files. Estimates do not include self-employed workers. Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for this occupation: RSE (3) Employment (1) Mean hourly wage Mean annual wage (2) 302,430 $16.38 $34,070 2.3 % 0.4 % 0.4 %

Percentile wage estimates for this occupation: Percentile Hourly Wage Annual Wage (2) 10% $9.18 $19,100 25% $11.71 $24,370 50% (Median) $15.59 $32,420 75% $20.20 $42,020 90% $25.25 $52,520

About 2001 National, State, and Metropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Percentile wage estimates show the percentage of workers in an occupation that earn less than a given wage and the percentage that earn more. The median wage is the 50th percentile wage estimate--50 percent of workers earn less than the median and 50 percent of workers earn more than the median. More about percentile wages.

(1) Data for detailed occupations does not sum to the totals because the totals include data for occupations not shown separately. (2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year-round, full-time" hours figure of 2,080 hours; for those occupations where there is not an hourly mean wage published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data. (3) The relative standard error (RSE) is a measure of the reliability of a survey statistic. The smaller the relative standard error, the more precise the estimate. All Office and Administrative Support Occupations 2001 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 2001 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 2001 Metropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 2001 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM
1 of 2

Document 90

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 12 of 17

7/10/2008 11:27 AM

Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2002/oes435061.htm

S p N avi gati on Li nks ki

U.S. Department of Labor
www.bls.gov

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Occupational Employment Statistics Advanced Search | A-Z Index

BLS Home | Programs & Surveys | Get Detailed Statistics | Glossary | What's New | Find It! In DOL

RELATED OES LINKS

Occupational Employment and Wages, 2002
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks Coordinate and expedite the flow of work and materials within or between departments of an establishment according to production schedule. Duties include reviewing and distributing production, work, and shipment schedules; conferring with department supervisors to determine progress of work and completion dates; and compiling reports on progress of work, inventory levels, costs, and production problems. Exclude "Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping" (43-5111). National estimates for this occupation Industry profile for this occupation State profile for this occupation Metropolitan area profile for this occupation National estimates for this occupation: Top Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for this occupation: Employment (1) 279,640 Employment RSE (3) 1.0 % Mean hourly wage $16.87 Mean annual wage (2) $35,080 Wage RSE (3) 0.3 %

Percentile wage estimates for this occupation: Percentile Hourly Wage Annual Wage (2) 10% $9.46 $19,680 25% $12.14 $25,250 50% (Median) $16.18 $33,650 75% $20.74 $43,130 90% $25.84 $53,750

Industry profile for this occupation: Top Industries with the highest levels of employment in this occupation: Industry Federal government (OES designation) Wired telecommunications carriers Aerospace product and parts manufacturing Management of companies and enterprises Employment services Top paying industries for this occupation: Employment Hourly mean wage $20.39 Annual mean wage $42,410 Employment rank 1 Wage rank

11,320

14

7,690

$20.00

$41,600

2

18

7,510

$19.68

$40,930

3

20

7,130 7,120

$17.84 $12.30

$37,110 $25,580

4 5

61 223

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM
1 of 3

Document 90

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 13 of 17

7/10/2008 11:28 AM

Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2003/may/oes435061.htm

U.S. Department of Labor
www.bls.gov
Search: All BLS.gov for:

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Home
INFLATION

Newsroom | Tutorials | Release Calendar

Subject Areas
SPENDING

Databases & Tables
UNEMPLOYMENT

Publications

Economic Releases
PRODUCTIVITY INJURIES OES

A - Z Index | About BLS

EMPLOYMENT

PAY & BENEFITS

Occupational Employment Statistics
BROWSE OES OES HOME OES OVERVIEW OES NEWS RELEASES OES DATABASES OES TABLES OES PUBLICATIONS OES FAQS CONTACT OES

FONT SIZE:

PRINT:

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2003
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks
Coordinate and expedite the flow of work and materials within or between departments of an establishment according to production schedule. Duties include reviewing and distributing production, work, and shipment schedules; conferring with department supervisors to determine progress of work and completion dates; and compiling reports on progress of work, inventory levels, costs, and production problems. Exclude "Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping" (43-5111). National estimates for this occupation Industry profile for this occupation State profile for this occupation Metropolitan area profile for this occupation
Go

SEARCH OES

National estimates for this occupation: Top
Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for this occupation: Employment (1) 277,030 Employment Mean hourly Mean annual Wage RSE (3) RSE (3) wage wage (2) 1.0 % $17.32 $36,030 0.3 %

OES HIGHLIGHTS OCCUPATIONAL PROFILES STATE ESTIMATES INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS

Percentile wage estimates for this occupation: Percentile Hourly Wage 10% $9.98 25% $12.70 50% (Median) $16.74 75% $21.01 90% $26.12

Annual Wage (2) $20,760 $26,420 $34,820 $43,690 $54,330

Industry profile for this occupation: Top
Industries with the highest levels of employment in this occupation: Industry Federal government (OES designation) Wired telecommunications carriers Aerospace product and parts manufacturing Management of companies and enterprises Employment services Employment 11,030 8,280 7,340 7,170 7,030 Hourly mean Annual mean Employment wage wage rank $20.62 $19.89 $20.12 $18.03 $12.40 $42,890 $41,370 $41,850 $37,490 $25,800 1 2 3 4 5 Wage rank 16 23 22 64 233

Top paying industries for this occupation: Industry Power generation and supply Waste treatment and disposal Motor vehicle manufacturing Metal ore mining Rail transportation Employment 1,500 130 1,140 50 210 Hourly mean Annual mean Employment wage wage rank $25.78 $24.20 $23.24 $22.75 $22.53 $53,620 $50,330 $48,330 $47,320 $46,870 49 191 67 221 173 Wage rank 1 2 3 4 5

State profile for this occupation: Top
States with the highest concentration of workers in this occupation:

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM
1 of 3

Document 90

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 14 of 17

8/3/2008 8:02 PM

Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2004/may/oes435061.htm

U.S. Department of Labor
www.bls.gov
Search: All BLS.gov for:

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Home
INFLATION

Newsroom | Tutorials | Release Calendar

Subject Areas
SPENDING

Databases & Tables
UNEMPLOYMENT

Publications

Economic Releases
PRODUCTIVITY INJURIES OES

A - Z Index | About BLS

EMPLOYMENT

PAY & BENEFITS

Occupational Employment Statistics
BROWSE OES OES HOME OES OVERVIEW OES NEWS RELEASES OES DATABASES OES TABLES OES PUBLICATIONS OES FAQS CONTACT OES

FONT SIZE:

PRINT:

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2004
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks
Coordinate and expedite the flow of work and materials within or between departments of an establishment according to production schedule. Duties include reviewing and distributing production, work, and shipment schedules; conferring with department supervisors to determine progress of work and completion dates; and compiling reports on progress of work, inventory levels, costs, and production problems. Exclude "Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping" (43-5111). National estimates for this occupation Industry profile for this occupation State profile for this occupation Metropolitan area profile for this occupation
Go

SEARCH OES

National estimates for this occupation: Top
Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for this occupation: Employment (1) 285,940 Employment Mean hourly Mean annual Wage RSE (3) RSE (3) wage wage (2) 1.0 % $18.10 $37,650 0.3 %

OES HIGHLIGHTS OCCUPATIONAL PROFILES STATE ESTIMATES INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS

Percentile wage estimates for this occupation: Percentile Hourly Wage 10% $10.43 25% $13.31 50% (Median) $17.47 75% $22.06 90% $26.85

Annual Wage (2) $21,690 $27,690 $36,340 $45,880 $55,850

Industry profile for this occupation: Top
Industries with the highest levels of employment in this occupation: Industry Wired telecommunications carriers Management of companies and enterprises Printing and related support activities Warehousing and storage Postal service Employment 8,310 7,520 6,950 6,740 6,690 Hourly mean Annual mean wage wage $20.68 $18.50 $18.97 $16.49 $22.67 $43,020 $38,490 $39,460 $34,310 $47,150

Top paying industries for this occupation: Industry Metal ore mining Power generation and supply Federal government (OES designation) Waste treatment and disposal Tobacco manufacturing Employment 50 2,380 4,380 130 360 Hourly mean Annual mean wage wage $25.01 $24.69 $24.00 $23.64 $23.57 $52,010 $51,360 $49,910 $49,170 $49,020

State profile for this occupation: Top
States with the highest concentration of workers in this occupation:

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM
1 of 3

Document 90

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 15 of 17

8/3/2008 8:01 PM

Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2005/may/oes435061.htm

U.S. Department of Labor
www.bls.gov
Search: All BLS.gov for:

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Home
INFLATION

Newsroom | Tutorials | Release Calendar

Subject Areas
SPENDING

Databases & Tables
UNEMPLOYMENT

Publications

Economic Releases
PRODUCTIVITY INJURIES OES

A - Z Index | About BLS

EMPLOYMENT

PAY & BENEFITS

Occupational Employment Statistics
BROWSE OES OES HOME OES OVERVIEW OES NEWS RELEASES OES DATABASES OES TABLES OES PUBLICATIONS OES FAQS CONTACT OES

FONT SIZE:

PRINT:

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2005
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks
Coordinate and expedite the flow of work and materials within or between departments of an establishment according to production schedule. Duties include reviewing and distributing production, work, and shipment schedules; conferring with department supervisors to determine progress of work and completion dates; and compiling reports on progress of work, inventory levels, costs, and production problems. Exclude "Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping" (43-5111). National estimates for this occupation Industry profile for this occupation State profile for this occupation Metropolitan area profile for this occupation
Go

SEARCH OES

National estimates for this occupation: Top
Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for this occupation: Employment (1) 287,980 Employment Mean hourly Mean annual Wage RSE (3) RSE (3) wage wage (2) 0.9 % $18.71 $38,920 0.3 %

OES HIGHLIGHTS OCCUPATIONAL PROFILES STATE ESTIMATES INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS

Percentile wage estimates for this occupation: Percentile Hourly Wage 10% $10.99 25% $13.82 50% (Median) $18.07 75% $22.93 90% $27.33

Annual Wage (2) $22,860 $28,740 $37,590 $47,700 $56,850

Industry profile for this occupation: Top
Industries with the highest published employment and wages for this occupation are provided. For a list of all industries with employment in this occupation, see the Create Customized Tables function. Industries with the highest levels of employment in this occupation: Industry Management of companies and enterprises Motor vehicle parts manufacturing Aerospace product and parts manufacturing Warehousing and storage Postal service Employment 7,940 7,470 7,300 6,800 6,730 Hourly mean Annual mean wage wage $18.72 $18.05 $22.40 $17.46 $23.81 $38,930 $37,540 $46,590 $36,320 $49,520

Top paying industries for this occupation: Industry Oil and gas extraction Waste treatment and disposal Federal government (OES designation) Power generation and supply Postal service Employment 240 170 4,580 2,350 6,730 Hourly mean Annual mean wage wage $25.17 $24.84 $24.59 $23.94 $23.81 $52,350 $51,660 $51,140 $49,800 $49,520

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM
1 of 3

Document 90

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 16 of 17

8/3/2008 7:58 PM

Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2006/may/oes435061.htm

U.S. Department of Labor
www.bls.gov
Search: All BLS.gov for:

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Home
INFLATION

Newsroom | Tutorials | Release Calendar

Subject Areas
SPENDING

Databases & Tables
UNEMPLOYMENT

Publications

Economic Releases
PRODUCTIVITY INJURIES OES

A - Z Index | About BLS

EMPLOYMENT

PAY & BENEFITS

Occupational Employment Statistics
BROWSE OES OES HOME OES OVERVIEW OES NEWS RELEASES OES DATABASES OES TABLES OES PUBLICATIONS OES FAQS CONTACT OES

FONT SIZE:

PRINT:

Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2006
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks
Coordinate and expedite the flow of work and materials within or between departments of an establishment according to production schedule. Duties include reviewing and distributing production, work, and shipment schedules; conferring with department supervisors to determine progress of work and completion dates; and compiling reports on progress of work, inventory levels, costs, and production problems. Exclude "Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers, Recordkeeping" (43-5111). National estimates for this occupation Industry profile for this occupation State profile for this occupation Metropolitan area profile for this occupation
Go

SEARCH OES

National estimates for this occupation: Top
Employment estimate and mean wage estimates for this occupation: Employment (1) 286,160 Employment Mean hourly Mean annual Wage RSE (3) RSE (3) wage wage (2) 0.8 % $19.23 $40,000 0.3 %

OES HIGHLIGHTS OCCUPATIONAL PROFILES STATE ESTIMATES INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS

Percentile wage estimates for this occupation: Percentile Hourly Wage 10% $11.28 25% $14.21 50% (Median) $18.57 75% $23.51 90% $28.40

Annual Wage (2) $23,470 $29,560 $38,620 $48,900 $59,080

Industry profile for this occupation: Top
Industries with the highest published employment and wages for this occupation are provided. For a list of all industries with employment in this occupation, see the Create Customized Tables function. Industries with the highest levels of employment in this occupation: Industry Management of Companies and Enterprises Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing Warehousing and Storage Postal Service Top paying industries for this occupation: Industry Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil Waste Treatment and Disposal Oil and Gas Extraction Federal Executive Branch (OES designation) Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas Employment 30 370 280 4,620 100 Hourly mean Annual mean wage wage $30.04 $28.73 $26.27 $25.44 $25.13 $62,480 $59,750 $54,650 $52,910 $52,270 Employment 8,910 7,420 7,350 7,160 6,760 Hourly mean Annual mean wage wage $19.57 $18.79 $23.15 $17.92 $21.59 $40,700 $39,080 $48,150 $37,280 $44,910

State profile for this occupation: Top
States with the highest published employment concentrations and wages for this occupation are provided. For a list of all States with employment in this occupation, see the Create Customized Tables function.

Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM
1 of 3

Document 90

Filed 08/07/2008

Page 17 of 17

8/3/2008 5:51 PM