The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions this morning:
Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184: Petitioner Michael Biestek, a former construction laborer, applied for social security disability benefits after he developed a degenerative disc disease and other ailments. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was assigned to hold a hearing to determine whether Biestek could successfully transition to less physically demanding work. The Social Security Administration relied on an expert who testified to the availability of other jobs in the economy, based largely on private market-survey data. But when Biestek requested that the expert turn over those surveys, the expert refused. The ALJ denied Biestek’s application, basing the conclusion on the expert’s testimony. While an agency’s factual findings in such a proceeding are “conclusive” in judicial review so long as they are supported by “substantial evidence,” 42 U.S.C. §405(g), Biestek argued on appeal that the expert’s testimony could not be deemed “substantial evidence” given that the expert refused to provide the underlying data relied upon when specifically requested. The District Court rejected that argument, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Today, the Court likewise affirmed, holding that a vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
The Court’s decision is available here.
Bucklew v. Precythe, No. 17-8151: Petitioner Russell Bucklew is on death row...
