It pays to keep the information you use on a daily basis up to date.  An Arkansas federal judge recently said a job description in an outdated Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) should not have been used to determine whether a worker who developed emphysema was disabled.

In the DOT, the positions's duties were classified as light and did not address exposure to dust or pollutants. 

In addition to finding evidence that the insurer failed to look into whether the ability to tolerate dust and chemicals was an essential part of selling agricultural supplies, the judge in Larry Jones v. Mountaire Corp. Long Term Disability Plan (No. 4:06CV0158-WRW, E.D. Ark.; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60389) found that the 1998 Occupational Information Network superceded the DOT and described the position as requiring frequent exposure to such irritants.

The judge said that if the insurer had "engaged in an adequate vocational assessment, used up-to-date materials, took into consideration plaintiff's actual job duties, and provided the reviewing physicians with better information, the outcome of the review would likely have been different."