Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security

Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work” available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant’s request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.

Petitioner became unemployed due to several medical conditions and was denied social security benefits by the Social Security Administration and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The district court vacated and remanded the denial, finding that there were improper assumptions regarding expert testimony. On remand, the ALJ, relying on the testimony of a vocational expert, found that Petitioner had the capacity to perform other work and that such jobs were available. The expert, however, refused to provide the data relied on and Petitioner’s application was denied. The district court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that there is no “obligation for vocational experts to provide the data and reasoning used in support of their conclusions upon request.” Further, the Sixth Circuit found that Congress specifically exempted Social Security disability proceedings from the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicts with precedent in the Seventh Circuit, which requires vocational experts to produce data underlying their opinions regarding other available work. Petitioner appeals the Sixth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that a decision by the ALJ must be supported by “substantial evidence” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), and requiring vocational experts to provide relied-upon data when requested would impose a minimal burden.