Biestek v. Berryhill

This case asked whether a vocational expert's testimony can count as enough evidence in a Social Security disability case when the expert refuses to provide the data behind job-number estimates. The Supreme Court said that testimony is not automatically thrown out and may still count as substantial evidence, depending on the facts of the hearing.

The Court decided that this kind of vocational-expert testimony is not automatically disqualified and can still count as substantial evidence depending on the circumstances. The prompt does not provide the vote count or opinion lineup.

The decision affects disability applicants and the government in Social Security hearings. For example, an administrative law judge may still rely on an expert's job estimates even if the expert does not hand over the supporting survey data.

The Supreme Court has finished with this case. In practice, lower courts and Social Security adjudicators must apply the Court's case-by-case approach in future disputes over expert testimony.

The dispute was whether a vocational expert's job-number testimony could support denying disability benefits without producing the data behind those estimates. The Court said the answer depends on the circumstances, not a flat rule.

It can make it harder for some applicants to knock out expert testimony just because the expert will not share supporting data. Judges may still treat that testimony as enough evidence in some hearings.

The Supreme Court's work on this docket ended with the 2019 decision. Future Social Security cases must use the Court's approach when evaluating similar expert testimony.