By: Derek Hawkins//May 8, 2019//
United States Supreme Court
Case Name: Michael J. Biestek v. Nancy A. Berryhill
Case No.: 17-1184
Focus: Expert Testimony
The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to individuals who cannot obtain work because of a physical or mental disability. To determine whether an applicant is entitled to benefits, the agency may hold an informal hearing examining (among other things) the kind and number of jobs available for someone with the applicant’s disability and other characteristics. The agency’s factual findings on that score are “conclusive” in judicial review of the benefits decision so long as they are supported by “substantial evidence.” 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
This case arises from the SSA’s reliance on an expert’s testimony about the availability of certain jobs in the economy. The expert largely based her opinion on private market-survey data. The question presented is whether her refusal to provide that data upon the applicant’s request categorically precludes her testimony from counting as “substantial evidence.” We hold it does not.
Affirmed
Dissenting: SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.
Concurring: