Term: 2018
Docket: 17-1184
Biestek v. Berryhill
- Pro
17-1184 BIESTEK V. BERRYHILL DECISION BELOW: 880 F.3d 778 CERT. GRANTED 6/25/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: When assessing an applicant's eligibility for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") must determine whether the applicant "can make an adjustment to other work." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). This determination must be supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In making the determination, an ALJ is authorized to call a vocational expert to testify about other work available to an applicant. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(e). These assessments occur hundreds of thousands of times annually. The question presented is: Whether a vocational expert's testimony can constitute substantial evidence of "other work," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 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. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-1459
In the case of Biestek v. Berryhill, Michael J. Biestek, a former construction worker applied for Social Security disability benefits claiming he could no longer work due to physical and mental disabilities. The Social Security Administration denied his claim after a vocational expert testified that there were jobs available in the economy that Biestek could perform despite his impairments. When asked by Biestek's lawyer to provide data supporting her testimony, the expert refused citing confidentiality agreements with her clients as reason not to disclose it. Biestek appealed this decision arguing that without access to underlying data used by the vocational expert, he was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine her thereby violating his right under Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against him stating that an applicant for social security benefits cannot automatically demand underlying data from experts who testify at disability determination hearings and such refusal does not necessarily render their testimonies invalid or unreliable.
In the dissenting opinion for Biestek v. Berryhill, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits to Michael Biestek was based on unreliable testimony from a vocational expert. The expert refused to provide data supporting her claim that there were jobs available in the national economy which Mr. Biestek could perform despite his impairments. According to Justice Gorsuch, this refusal violated Mr. Biestek’s right under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and due process clause to review evidence used against him in an administrative proceeding, thereby undermining fairness and trustworthiness of proceedings before federal agencies like SSA.
