Biestek v. Berryhill

2019-04-01

Headline: Court rejects an automatic ban on vocational expert testimony when experts refuse to share private job‑survey data, meaning such testimony can still support disability denials in some cases after case‑by‑case review.

Holding: The Court held that a vocational expert's refusal to produce private underlying job‑survey data does not automatically prevent her testimony from qualifying as substantial evidence; whether it suffices must be decided case‑by‑case, and the lower court's judgment was affirmed.

Real World Impact:

Allows SSA experts' testimony to count even when private supporting data is withheld.
Requires courts to evaluate each expert's testimony on a case-by-case basis.
Affirms the lower court ruling here without resolving evidence sufficiency in this specific case.

Topics: disability benefits, vocational experts, job availability evidence, administrative hearings, evidence disclosure

Summary

Background

Michael Biestek, a former construction worker, applied for Social Security disability benefits after developing serious medical problems. At his hearing a vocational expert identified large numbers of sedentary jobs the applicant could allegedly do and gave specific job‑count numbers. When Biestek’s lawyer asked for the expert’s private market surveys that supported those numbers, the expert refused and the hearing judge declined to require production. The judge relied on the expert’s testimony and denied benefits for an earlier period; Biestek appealed.

Reasoning

The core question was whether an expert’s refusal to turn over private supporting data automatically prevents her oral testimony from qualifying as “substantial evidence” — meaning enough evidence a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a fact. The Court said no: a categorical rule excluding testimony whenever an expert withholds private data is too broad. Instead, courts must evaluate the whole record and the expert’s testimony on a case‑by‑case basis, deferring to the hearing judge when the testimony otherwise shows sufficient reliability. The Court therefore rejected the Seventh Circuit’s blanket rule and affirmed the lower court’s judgment without deciding whether the evidence in Biestek’s specific case was sufficient.

Real world impact

Disability claimants will not get an automatic win simply because a vocational expert declines to produce private surveys. Hearing judges and courts must weigh an expert’s credentials, explanations, and the rest of the record before deciding if the testimony is substantial. The Social Security agency’s guidance encouraging experts to have relied‑upon materials available at hearings remains best practice.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch dissented: they argued the expert’s conclusory testimony, without production or meaningful explanation of the data, was not substantial evidence in this case and would have ruled for Biestek. They emphasized the agency’s burden to support claims with reliable evidence.