Summary
This Seventh Circuit opinion reviews a district court's affirmation of the denial of Social Security disability benefits to the plaintiff-appellant. The central issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge's reliance on a vocational expert's uncorroborated job-number estimates lacked substantial evidence, given that the claimant failed to object at the administrative hearing. The court holds that the claimant forfeited the objection and that the vocational expert's testimony was facially reliable, thus affirming the lower court's judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Schmitz forfeited her objection to the vocational expert's failure to disclose the sources and methodology supporting her estimates of national job numbers by failing to raise the objection during the administrative proceedings.
- Whether the vocational expert's testimony constituted substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's step-five finding despite the absence of disclosed sources and methodology.
- Whether Social Security Ruling 00-4p required the ALJ to investigate a merely potential, unidentified conflict between the vocational expert's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
Holdings
- A claimant who does not timely object during the administrative hearing to the foundation or methodology of a vocational expert's job-number estimates forfeits that objection, absent circumstances warranting extraordinary plain-error review.
- Where a claimant has not placed the vocational expert's foundation or methodology in issue, and the testimony is otherwise uncontradicted, coherent, plausible, and not facially defective, the ALJ may credit the testimony as substantial evidence.
- Social Security Ruling 00-4p does not require an ALJ to investigate an abstract or merely potential conflict between vocational-expert testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles when no apparent conflict is identified.
Key quotations
“By not making a timely objection to the ALJ regarding Lott’s analysis, Schmitz forfeited this objection.” (at 5)
“But assuming there are no obvious flaws in the testimony, where a claimant has failed to put the vocational expert’s foundation or methodology into issue and the expert’s testimony is otherwise uncontradicted, the ALJ is entitled to credit that testimony.” (at 6)
“On its face, and in the absence of an objection by Schmitz, Lott’s testimony met the substantial evidence standard.” (at 8)
“Consequently, the ALJ was entitled to credit Lott’s opinions, and the ALJ’s finding as to the jobs that Schmitz could perform was supported by substantial evidence.” (at 10)
Factual background
Schmitz applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging disability arising from multiple physical and mental impairments. The ALJ found that she could not perform her past work but retained a residual functional capacity permitting certain light work and identified six jobs available in substantial numbers in the national economy, based substantially on vocational expert Brianne Lott's testimony. Lott did not disclose the data sources or methodology underlying her estimates of available positions, but Schmitz's counsel did not object or question her about those matters during the administrative hearing or in post-hearing briefing.
Procedural history
An administrative law judge denied Schmitz's application after finding at step five of the sequential disability analysis that she could perform jobs existing in substantial numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review. The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois sustained the denial, concluding that Schmitz had forfeited her objection to the vocational expert's job-number testimony and that the testimony was sufficiently reliable on its face. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.