Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Biestek v. Berryhill

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


New Administrative State Banner.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Biestek v. Berryhill
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: December 4, 2018
Decided: April 1, 2019
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch • Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Biestek v. Berryhill is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving whether the substantial evidence standard requires agency experts to share data used to deny a benefits claim. Under the substantial evidence standard, agencies have to base their actions on an established record that contains evidence a reasonable person might accept as supporting a conclusion. In this case, the court held that judges could uphold agency decisions even when agency experts refuse to provide requested data. The decision gave agencies more flexibility when establishing facts during a hearing and made it more difficult to challenge their conclusions.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Michael Biestek stopped working in 2005 due to degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. His application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in 2010 was denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA). An administrative law judge found that Biestek was disabled after May 4, 2013, but not before. Biestek appealed, arguing that the judge should have complied with his request to require the vocational expert to provide the data that suggested there was other work available to Biestek. The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the administrative law judge had not erred in not requiring the vocational expert to produce the data.
  • The issue: Whether a vocational expert's testimony can constitute substantial evidence of "other work," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant's request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.[3]
  • The outcome: The court held that a refusal to include data supporting the testimony of expert witnesses in the official record of adjudication proceedings does not preclude the testimony from counting as "substantial evidence."[2]


    • Why it matters: The court declined to make a firm ruling about whether an expert's refusal to share the data used to deny a benefits claim causes the agency to fail the substantial evidence test. The ruling meant that judges reviewing agency decisions would continue to analyze such situations on a case-by-case basis.[2]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 1, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 6th Circuit's ruling
    • December 4, 2018: Oral argument
    • June 25, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • February 21, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 27, 2017: The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the commissioner of social security.

    Background

    Administrative State
    Administrative State Icon Gold.png
    Five Pillars of the Administrative State
    •Agency control
    • Executive control
    • Judicial control
    •Legislative control
    • Public Control
    Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
    Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

    Michael Biestek worked in carpentry and construction for much of his life. He stopped working in 2005 due to degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. His application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in 2010 was denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA).[4]

    After being denied review by an administrative law judge (ALJ) and the Social Security Administration Appeals Council, Biestek appealed to a district court. The district court remanded the case. This time, an ALJ found that Biestek was disabled after May 4, 2013, but not before. Biestek appealed, arguing that the judge should have complied with his request to require the vocational expert to provide the data that suggested other work was available to Biestek. The vocational expert had proposed two jobs—bench (final) assembler and nut sorter—that Biestek would have the ability to perform. The district court affirmed the ALJ's decision.[5]

    Upon further appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's decision, ruling that the administrative law judge had not erred in not requiring the vocational expert to produce the data: "Ultimately, responsibility for weighing the credibility of witnesses belongs to the ALJ, who in this case acceptably fulfilled that obligation."[5]

    An ALJ is an official who presides over administrative hearings as both the judge and the jury. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that administrative law judges preside over hearings during formal adjudication proceedings, but they may also preside over hearings during informal adjudication. Adjudication proceedings include agency determinations outside of the rulemaking process that aim to resolve disputes between either agencies and private parties or between two private parties. Although many of these officials have the word judge in their job title, administrative adjudicators are part of the executive rather than the judicial branch. They are not judges as described in Article III of the Constitution.

    The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 4, 2018, during the court's 2018 term. You can review the lower court's opinion here.[5]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether a vocational expert's testimony can constitute substantial evidence of "other work," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant's request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]

    Transcript

    • Read the oral argument transcript here.

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court held that agency experts could omit supporting data from the official adjudication record and still pass the substantial evidence test. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.[2]

    Opinion

    In the opinion, Kagan wrote:[2]

    “ Where Biestek goes wrong, at bottom, is in pressing for a categorical rule, applying to every case in which a vocational expert refuses a request for underlying data. Sometimes an expert’s withholding of such data, when combined with other aspects of the record, will prevent her testimony from qualifying as substantial evidence. ... But sometimes the reservation of data will have no such effect. ... The inquiry, as is usually true in determining the substantiality of evidence, is case-by-case. ...


    Biestek petitioned us only to adopt the categorical rule we have now rejected. He did not ask us to decide whether, in the absence of that rule, substantial evidence supported the ALJ in denying him benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment. [7]

    		”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch also filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[2]

    In her dissent, Sotomayor agreed with Gorsuch, writing the vocational expert's testimony in Biestek's case did not constitute substantial evidence. She wrote:[2]

    “ An expert may have legitimate reasons for not turning over data, such as the burden of gathering

    records or confidentiality concerns that redaction cannot address. In those circumstances, as the majority suggests, the agency may be able to support an expert’s testimony in ways other than by providing underlying data, such as by offering a fulsome description of the data and methodology on which the expert relies. See ante, at 8. The agency simply did not do so here. [7]

    		”

    In his dissent, Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ An agency expert’s bottomline conclusion, supported only by a claim of readily available evidence that she refuses to produce on request, fails to satisfy the government’s statutory burden of producing substantial evidence of available other work. ... The refusal to supply readily available evidentiary support for a conclusion strongly suggests that the conclusion is, well, unsupported. [7] ”

    Text of the opinion

    • Read the full opinion here.

    Impact

    In the immediate aftermath of the decision, the impact of the court's ruling was unclear. Justice Kagan's decision to focus on a narrow question, whether to establish a categorical rule requiring experts to turn over data supporting their opinions, limited the impact of the case, according to law professor David A. Super.[8] The dissenting opinions focused on the merits of Biestek's case instead of rules governing the substantial evidence test.[8]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1184 Biestek v. Berryhill," accessed November 2, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Biestek v. Berryhill, April 3, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "QPReport 17-1184 Biestek v. Berryhill," accessed November 2, 2018
    4. ↑ Oyez, "Biestek v. Berryhill," accessed November 2, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 SCOTUSblog, "Biestek v. Berryhill," accessed November 2, 2018
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Biestek v. Berryhill, argued December 4, 2018
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: Court rejects per se rule on cross-examination in Social Security disability cases," accessed April 16, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Biestek_v._Berryhill&oldid=10301476"