Biestek v. Berryhill

Michael Biestek applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming he could no longer work due to physical and mental impairments. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim after a hearing, partly relying on testimony from a vocational expert who identified jobs Biestek could still perform. Biestek challenged this decision, arguing the expert's testimony could not constitute "substantial evidence" because the expert refused to provide the underlying data supporting her job-number estimates during cross-examination. The case escalated through the federal courts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court, which addressed whether an expert's refusal to disclose supporting data automatically voids the evidentiary value of that testimony under the substantial evidence standard.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Social Security Administration. The Court held that a vocational expert's refusal to provide supporting data upon request does not categorically prevent the expert's testimony from constituting substantial evidence. Instead, the substantial evidence inquiry is case-specific, and an ALJ may credit such testimony if it is otherwise reliable given the record as a whole.

Whether a vocational expert's refusal to provide supporting data for job-number estimates during an administrative hearing precludes that testimony from qualifying as "substantial evidence" under the Social Security Act.

The decision reinforced the broad discretion of ALJs in evaluating expert testimony during disability hearings, signaling that vocational expert opinions retain significant weight even when underlying data is not disclosed. This ruling was seen as a victory for the Social Security Administration's efficiency in processing claims, but it sparked debate among disability advocates regarding transparency and the fairness of the hearing process for claimants challenging job-number assertions.