Case No. 17-1184 | 6th Cir.
Preview by Samuel E. Meredith, Senior Online Editor
When an individual requests disability benefits through the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), the SSA may decline to extend such benefits if it finds that the individual “can make an adjustment to other work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). In deciding whether individuals are capable of assuming “other work,” the SSA often employs “vocational experts.” Brief of Petitioner at 3, Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184 (U.S. filed Aug. 27, 2018). If the SSA hears testimony from such an expert, may that testimony provide the basis for rejecting a request for benefits even if the SSA did not allow the individual requesting the benefits to access the materials underlying the expert’s testimony? This is the question that the court must address in Biestek v. Berryhill.
Michael Biestek was a construction worker before a depression, Hepatitis C, and back problems rendered him unable to continue working. Biestek applied to the SSA for disability benefits. During the ensuing proceedings, an expert opined that Biestek, in spite of his various maladies, was still capable of performing other work. When Biestek asked the expert to provide the materials upon which her opinion was based, the expert said she was unable to do so, citing confidentiality concerns. The SSA did not require the expert to provide access to the materials. The SSA subsequently denied Biestek’s request for benefits, a decision that was based solely on the expert’s testimony. This district court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the SSA’s decision.
Biestek argues that the SSA’s ruling “defies common sense,” and encourages the Court to adopt the approach of the Seventh Circuit, under which the expert would have been obligated to produce the materials Biestek requested. Brief of Petitioner at 5, Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184 (U.S. filed Aug. 27, 2018). In response, the SSA points out that there were other strategies that Biestek did not pursue by which he could have challenged the expert’s conclusions. See Brief for the Respondent at 20–22, Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184 (U.S. filed Oct. 15, 2018). The SSA further argues that the approach Biestek urges “would be impractical and burdensome.” Id. at 52.