Biestek v. Berryhill
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 1, 2019 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- April 1, 2019
- Term
- October Term 2018
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Kagan
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 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. I Petitioner Michael Biestek once worked as a carpenter and general laborer on construction sites. But he stopped working after he developed degenerative disc disease, Hepatitis C, and depression. He then applied for social security disability benefits, claiming eligibility as of October 2009. After some preliminary proceedings, the SSA assigned an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to hold a hearing…
Excerpt of a 20,706-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.