The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Biestek v. Berryhill a Social Security disability case that involves the validity of a vocational expert. Every Social Security case involves a vocational expert when a disability hearing is before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). During a disability hearing the vocational expert will testify about job availability in the current labor market as well as the skills needed to perform specific jobs.
Michael Biestek applied for Social Security disability, but was eventually denied by an ALJ. Biestek appealed this decision in district court and the case was remanded back to the ALJ where a “partially favorable” decision was granted, but Biestek was not finished. He once again appealed looking for a fully favorable decision (being granted disability benefits going back to his original alleged onset date). This time the district court sided with Social Security and so did the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari June 25, 2018, meaning it will consider upholding or reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision.
During a disability case the ALJ must determine whether a claimant can make an adjustment to other work and that determination must be supported by “substantial evidence.” Routinely ALJs call vocational experts to testify about other work available to a claimant, but Biestek is claiming that a vocational expert’s testimony does not constitute “substantial evidence.”
During a disability hearing the vocational expert does not provide specific research to answer the question about “substantial evidence,” but rather relies on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and generalized experience. The DOT is a publication produced by the Department of Labor that defines over 13,000 different jobs from 1938 to the late 1990s, but has not been updated in several decades. Once again, like in Lucia v. SEC, a case where the Supreme Court ruled that how ALJs were appointed at the Security and Exchange Commission was unconstitutional, Biestek v. Berryhill could have significant ramifications for how Social Security disability cases are decided.
